The Top 5 Things that Bernie and Trump have in Common


1. Movement

Bernie: Our movement understands that what we don't need is Trump's huge tax breaks for millionaires. July 21, 2016

Trump: “It's a movement not a campaign.” Trump campaign ad September 20, 2016

Politicians never start movements because movements are started by people, always. Can you think of an instance where a billionaire ever started a movement?

Campaigns operate within our political system. Movements operate outside the political system.

2. Establishment

Trump, "I think the establishment actually is against me...” January 25, 2016

Bernie: “I think the people of Iowa have sent a very profound message to the political establishment, to the economic establishment, and, by the way, to the media establishment.” February 1, 2016

Both Trump and Bernie dislike the “establishment.” They both ran for president as “outsiders.”

In fact Bernie went so far as to refer to Planned Parenthood a “part of the establishment.” January, 2016

3. Corrupt

Trump: "Our laws are so corrupt and so stupid," Trump April, 2018

Both Trump and Bernie have contempt for our political system. Trump clearly wants to undermine our laws and Bernie has no faith in the political “system.”

Bernie: “Democratic socialism means that we must reform a political system in America today which is not only grossly unfair but, in many respects, corrupt.” November, 2015

Trump: “Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt, and when say corrupt I'm talking about totally corrupt political establishment, with a new government controlled by you the American people.” October 2016

4. Rigged

Trump: “I'm afraid the election is going to be rigged.” August 2, 2016

Althought Bernie never claimed the election was rigged against him, large numbers of his supporters firmly believe the DNC was rigging the primary for Hillary. His supporters believed the political system was broken and that the primary was rigged to favor Hillary.

5. They rarely smile

Bernie and Trump scowl. When they do smile it's rare and visibly pained.

Trump and Bernie's comfort zone is the angry face, but anger is not a substitute for governance.

There's more similarities

Although Bernie and Trump consistently referred to working men and women or “working families” during their presidential runs, the image of “working” was certainly an image of the white male laborer.

Moreover, it was this particular demographic, the white working male, that their supporters adamantly referred to when discussing Hillary's loss: 'She lost the working people.' But that is disingenuous. What they really meant was that she couldn't persuade the 'working man' to support her. Certainly working women backed her (read the championing of the Lilly Ledbetter bill by Hillary and Ledbetter's subsequent endorsement of Hillary). Moreover, people who were concerned about the state of our economy voted for Hillary.

Her “loss” is identified by many as her inability to connect with 'workers.” This image conjures up populist feelings of pride in the 'strong man' who works hard despite the powers of elites that conspire against him. Hillary was cast as an 'elite' evidenced in the constant references to her as being status quo or corporate.

Both Bernie and Trump want their movements. Yet, interestingly neither has any background in the women's liberation movement which changed this country radically in the mid-20th century with one of its most notable achievements: the opening of doors for women into traditionally male jobs.

Shockingly, Bernie gave a speech in 2015 on socialism and the greatness of the New Deal without ever mentioning Francis Perkins, the woman who essentially created the New Deal.

Political Parties

Bernie was never a Democrat until he ran for president in 2016 and now he has returned to being an independent. Trump, between 1987 and 2011, started as a registered republican and then switched to independent and then switched again to a democrat and then back to being a republican.

The similarities between the two men who campaigned against the first woman to win a major party nomination is worth analyzing.

When we move beyond this time and enter a new decade, perhaps, we can see more clearly the trends that laid a foundation for the Trump Presidency. Patriarchy is bolstered by people whose comfort zone is a male framework for culture and government. In order to pave the way for a fuller democracy for the United States our biases must be uncovered and seen in a new light.

-Jennifer Hall Lee

Jill Stein Is No Feminist

Had to respond to a Hillary hater who proudly voted Stein and said i was a vagina voter. I responded: Vagina accusations are sexist. You are breaking women down into body parts. Additionally, you ignore the ground breaking work she has done for four decades. We are aware of sex-trafficking because she resolved (as FLOTUS) to help Ukrainian women who came to her in a women's conference Hillary organized in 1997. They came to her to say that whole villages were missing girls. Hillary put the full force of the First Lady's office behind the women of Ukraine. This global effort led to the first piece of legislation that allowed us to prosecute sex-traffickers. It was Hillary that showed the world the problem. Jill Stein has no record of fighting for women or children. Hillary continued her work in women's rights (which started with the Beijing conference and the women's rights and human rights speech, which was groundbreaking in that all the women at the conference went back to their countries and demanded equal rights. They were armed with strength from her. She went into the senate and crossed the aisle to get legislation passed to help older children get adopted. Oops, wait, that legislation was spearheaded by her when she was FLOTUS. In the senate she continued the work and championed pro-choice legislation and was the fighting force behind Lilly Ledbetter (who endorsed Hillary). NeverHillary people are not feminists, nor are they pro-children. They are patriarchal. As is Jill Stein.

The Big Bad Wolf Came to the White House Correspondents' Dinner

"Donald Trump Is Out, Sarah Huckabee Sanders is in." That was the April 6 announcement by USA TODAY.

Sarah Huckabee Sanders stood as proxy for the President. Comedian Michelle Wolf served as MC for the evening.

The gender roles were being challenged although most didn't notice, at first. Then, reality set in and some women and men came unglued.

Why was I surprised? We all know that when women get near the office of the president it shakes social foundations and pushes people to great extremes in order to shore up those stagnant, yet crumbling edifices. 

Mika Brzezinski, Maggie Haberman, and Andrea Mitchell acted as the press secretary's protectors by issuing tweets that were tinged with a hollow mid-century worship for the traditional housewife.

The Feminine Mystique rose from the dead. 

Mika Brzezinski saw Sanders as wife and mother, not the press secretary who attacks journalists from the press room.


Maggie Haberman's admired Sanders' stoicism. Was that Sarah Huckabee Sanders the press secretary sitting in place for the President or was it a hostess overseeing her party? 


Michelle Wolf's line about Sanders' smokey eye make-up being created by the ashes of her lies went over Haberman's head. She insisted it was a dig at Sanders' physical appearance.


Wolf is female so we must demand an apology.

Andrea Mitchell didn't disappoint.


Such confusion!

Cosmetics are products, purchased and applied as beauty enhancements. So is hair dye and we all know that Donald's hair is a source of ridicule. 

Who protects Trump? No one has to protect him because we live in a country of old gender stereotypes.

Trump is a man and we can laugh at his hair and weight because his looks are secondary to his strong man persona.

If you identify with political gender roles then a woman's appearance is primary.

Sanders defining characteristic was being protected by Mitchell, Haberman, and Brzezinski.

And thankfully Michelle Wolf stepped in to remind them they were living in the 21st century.

Michelle Wolf, born in 1985, well after feminists were wrapping up one era and entering another, stood strong and spoke freely in public. She even laughed at herself "I never really thought I would be a comedian, but I did take an aptitude test in seventh grade and this is 100% true. It said my best profession was a clown or a mime."

Reaction to her from more traditional quarters of our society couldn't see their own damaging double standards. 

Trump can be vulgar and misogynistic. He can wreck our house and we have to deal with it; clean it up afterwards and tell the children he didn't mean it and that he really loves women.

Wolf needed to be reminded of her place. Apologize.

Mitchell, Haberman, and Brzezinski played the role of gatekeepers for traditional gender stereotypes in a rigid home dominated by a man.

Thankfully, that Wolf showed up at the door. 


Watch Michelle Wolf's speech here:





"Hillary was a Bad Candidate" Provides Cover for Those Who Feared Her

"Hillary was a bad candidate." The sentence is a trite talking point.  

How does one respond?

Well, I heard it today from a young educated person and I laughed. The words were expressed in the middle of a conversation that entailed a discussion about the Nixon/Kennedy televised debates when Nixon sweated on television. This context mires the talking point in deep emotion.

"Hillary was a bad candidate." The sentence is an excuse. It allows the voter who was lukewarm about Hillary's candidacy to have a cover; "I just wasn't that into her, but she lost because she was a bad candidate."

Quick! I need help! Did I usher Trump into the Oval because I didn't trust her? Maybe it's true! Oh, but it can't be because I'm a good feminist.

It wasn't my fault Hillary was a bad candidate.

It is a hook upon which to rest your prejudices you felt deep in your gut but couldn't identify.  You watched the first female nominee who was about to be President of the USA. It is the most powerful position in the world. 

Imagine if she had won?

What would it be like for children and women across the globe to have the person who first said, "Women's rights are human rights" to say that again and more from the Oval Office?

"Hillary was a bad candidate."

Hillary was more than a candidate, she is as symbol of our commitment to the rights of women and children. It's an American value, is it not?

This talking point (childish as it is) is an excuse for voters to cloak their inability to step up for women and children of the world.

U.S. State Department, public domain

"Hillary was a bad candidate."

The phrase reveals the Ugly American made anew.

We are more than our borders. What is out there in the world is also in here among us; misogyny, child abuse, domestic violence, male domination.

History never repeats itself exactly, but we are in a time when anti-woman authoritarian has grabbed the Oval Office in the oldest democracy in the world because an opening was provided to him. The opening was labeled "suspicion," distrust," and "hate" for women who dare rise to the top echelons of our society.

It made many uncomfortable. 

"Hillary was a bad candidate." It's not the only excuse. 

"She didn't play well on television." Did George W. Bush?

I thought she did well on television. 

But, that's not the issue though, is it? Have we given up on our democracy so much that we rely on how one looks or sounds on television to help us decide who to vote for President? 

If America is the great experiment for the average citizen to rise to great heights than we have failed. But Hillary wasn't an average citizen, you might ask. No, she did the work to raise herself up to be the nominee for President. 

We are the average citizens who decide who speaks for us. 

How sad to see citizens succumb to the power of the screen and to allow themselves to be manipulated by talking points and news narratives that only benefit the corporate powers who sell advertising to television and radio networks.

She was a great candidate and the world needed her. 



She Who Persists We Must Enlist

A friend and I had lunch yesterday at one of the new Los Angeles area fusion restaurants in a newly gentrified neighborhood. Big money increasingly edges out regular people in American cities and we get fancy eggs and vegetables in return.

The cappuccino arrived and my friend asked me, "Who should run in 2020?" 

This is the wrong question.

It's a talking point, a cliche. And cliches are traditions that serve no purpose but to allow us the luxury of not thinking.

Something big is happening in our country. Let's open our eyes.

I made the following points:

  • We need justice for 2016
  • We need a President to help us, the people, fix our democracy*

Surprisingly I got a little bit of sticky resistance. My friend insisted we needed someone to beat Trump. That suggestion has an air of fantasy.

How can we "beat Trump" if we have no justice for the crime committed in 2016?

Fix the problem at hand. 

He floated celebrity names. I pushed back. If we encourage billionaires and celebrities (ones who have not begun a new political career by running for city council or school board) to populate the road to the White House simply because they have name recognition then soon the billionaires wil totally absorb our political sphere, which is our public sphere.

Public, that's us. 

 My lunch

My lunch

2016 was not a flash in the pan. It was a fire that's burning down our house. I told him we needed Hillary.

He resisted, I persisted.

Anyone who thinks 2018 and 2020 is going to be a normal election is naive.

Only we can fix the problem.

Fake news, online trolls and hate for any candidate that espouses strong democratic values will be a target of interference from the various anti-democratic forces sweeping the world.

President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte said in February, “Tell the soldiers. There’s a new order coming from the mayor. We won’t kill you. We will just shoot your vagina." 

We are in a wave of anti-human rights sentiment and actions across the globe.

Prior to the 2016 election Trump was heard on the Access Hollywood recording saying, "You can do anything ... Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."

These men are not friends of women or children yet, women and children are a supermajority. 

This time that we are in is a part of something big:  the women's movement continuum that is moving into a phase of female global leadership equal with men.

There are men who are not friends of women and children in powerful positions who are attempting to remind us that we are just body parts. (And they have female enablers.)

We resist.

We are the people and we exist. 

 Written on an envelope from a friend.

Written on an envelope from a friend.

Our President Spoke in New York Today

Hillary Clinton has been denied her place in the Oval Office so she's on the speaking circuit and we sure as hell need her.

At first I was reluctant to watch as it rips open the wounds of the last election - if we can call it that. Perhaps a soft coup is the proper phrase.

Today at the Pen America World Voices Festival in NYC she gave the Freedom To Write Arthur Miller Lecture. This speech is presidential.

She talked of our framers and their commitment to freedom of the press. (She clearly has learned a lot over the decades in public service.)

However, there was more to this speech than just the facts.

There was an undercurrent brewing and I liked it. Watch the speech and you will see what I mean.

She called out Trump, "Today we have a president who seems to reject the role of a free press in our democracy."

She called out the 2016 election, "It was a case study in the weaponization of false information and outright lies against our democracy."

At one point she called out Putin's fear of journalistic freedom and thus his authoritative regime in which he has journalists killed. These murders of reporters are facts and we have known of them for years, yet when Trump praised Putin during the campaign there were several pundits who kept clinging to Hillary's emails in hopes it would bring her down. It was a strange sight to behold.

Democracy is fragile.

Hillary succinctly summed up our current cultural atmosphere in the press by reminding us that we do have great journalists, but we also have a sea of pundits who enabled Trump's rise to the presidency.

They paved his way.

These days have been hard for me, as I am sure you feel the stress, too.

Although today I needed this particular speech. Just yesterday (or was it today) a friend on Facebook asked me who I thought should run for president in 2020.

I declined to answer and suggested a better question. I wrote "How do we, as citizens, get justice for 2016?"

Why that question? Hillary said it best "We are living through an all-out war on truth facts and reason."

This war brought down an American candidate for President.

The electoral college, the Trump campaign, James Comey, and numerous pundits failed America and left us with a charlatan, an authoritarian, a ridiculous man who rejects our values.

Justice for 2016.



Raise Consciousness and Change a Nation


I'm in a new Consciousness Raising group. Yes, it's a new twist on an old feminist tradition. The new twist is "What the fuck is going on?

What are CR groups? They are a feminist tradition from the women's movement. Feminists started consciousness raising groups in the 1960s and participated in them throughout the 1970s, and they were groundbreaking, because women had never really formally met with each other to discuss being female.

CR groups were a planned phenomenon, a series of meetings, inspired by the powerful personal testimonies during the Civil Rights Movement (African Americans gave testimony in churches detailing the experiences of their lives.) As the women's liberation movement was forming the idea to meet and talk with other women, privately in women's homes, was met with excitement. 

Consciousness Raising groups members changed our nation and as I reflect on their power I am reminded of the feminist and founder of the National Black Women's Health Project, Byllye Avery who said to me "I often wonder what life would be like if we hadn't stopped."

Yes, feminists stopped attending their CR groups for the most part and they died out as the monumental changes that the women's movement created were absorbed into the society. I have heard of some groups that are still ongoing, but they are rare. 

During the Women's Liberation Movement CR groups were in every city, town, and neighborhood. These local groups formed a strong underpinning to the national women's movement. Before we acted politically in public we formed our politics among each other.

Avery continued to say that if we had kept these groups alive, which were also building feminist political theory, "we would have a powerful force of women." A powerful force? Sounds good to me. She said, "We wouldn't have all this disconnect between what happened and what really happened."

I agree, the details of the Women's Liberation Movement are not shared among ourselves. Our memories grow old and like the brain itself, if you don't use it, you lose it. 

Avery suggested that if we had continued Consciousness Raising groups we would have a society where women could drop into an ongoing group, anywhere.

Imagine that, visit your parents in Seattle and drop in on a CR group! These groups would be places to connect with others and be repositories of knowledge. In a country with ongoing CR our history as women in America would been passed down through the decades since the women's movement to new generations, that's us. 

It was the consciousness raising groups of the 60s and 70s that provided the intellectual and emotional fuel for for the Women's Liberation Movement. 

How did they work? The feminists picked one topic and talked about it within their group until until the subject played out, Discussions ranged from marriage, children, employment, parents, anti-war movement, war, abortion, birth control.

They had rules and one of them was not to interrupt a woman as she was speaking. Interesting.

They were enlightening. The feminists started to see the connections between their own personal lives and the their public lives. For instance, perhaps a boss was not allowing a woman to rise from secretary to reporter and then through her CR group, she started to see the connection between her boss and her husband's or parents quashing of her ambitions. "The Personal Is Political" is a phrase born from the women's movement. 

Consciousness Raising changed our nation. 

The CR group in which I am a member is not covering personal experiences too much. We are shifting the topics to women and politics and discussing the current political situation as well. Things I want to discuss:

  • children and their rights as citizens
  • women and employment
  • women in congress
  • what life is like for women in countries who have had two female presidents (Let's skype!)
  • is the GOP putting our children in danger by backing Roy Moore
  • America's low global ranking on women in politics
  • why can't the United States seems to get a female president

The list will be a long one.

We are meeting face to face for the power of the interaction. Forget the computer screens and let's see one another. 

Perhaps after a few meetings with my sister CR participants I will see many reasons as to why female citizens are stymied in their road to power. Is our thwarted road to the White House a personal one?

If women revive CR groups in this terrible time for our country we can provide the emotional and intellectual underpinning necessary to combat the lies coming from our White House. This new consciousness can be seen as one national unit, so to speak, it can be the energy with which we can take our rightful place in our elected offices. 

The personal is political and, who knows what will be unearthed as women discuss the forces moving against us, citizens, as we take our rightful place in American politics.

"We should have looked at them as keeping groups together as long as people lived....We would have a powerful force of women and we wouldn't have all this disconnect between what happened and what really happened. Because people would know it. It would be ingrained, it would be within the fabric of their lives and of their consciousness." Byllye Avery

The Stench of Family Values

Daily, I try not to vomit. Today I failed, sort of. The robust endorsement of Judge Roy Moore, a hebephile, for U.S. Senate by the fraud Donald Trump was too much to bear.  Mr. 'grab 'em by the pussy' sees a like-minded man in Roy Moore. The very public recommendation on twitter by Trump was a 21st century man-to-man back slap. Molester to molester. Even Trump's ethics-challenged daughter couldn't stomach Roy Moore and declared last month that there is a "special place in hell for people who prey on children." 

Where this puts her father's place in the afterlife is clear. 

Here is the bottom line: The first female candidate for President of the United States, a woman with a background in the rights of children and women, was given the big smackdown by a party intent on turning our Oval Office into a patriarch's playroom. The GOP, a corrupt party of patriarchy, managed to eek out a electoral college victory that said to every girl in our nation; "Don't you dare aspire to rise to the top office in our nation."

They couldn't do it alone. They did it with the help of a male-identified authoritarian, Vladimir Putin.

Women and children are bearing the brunt of this humiliation. It's a familiar place for us. To put this horror show in context I look to history for a guide.

In 1965 our government published the sobering findings of the President's Commission on the Status of Women in the official 1965 government publication titled "American Women:  The Report of the President's Commission on the Status Of Women." The report detailed sobering facts about women's status in employment, income, voting rights, jury pools, marriage, social security, and more. Was there an outcry among our politicians? 

No. In fact, Ruth Rosen, feminist from the second wave of our nations great women's liberation movement sharply noted that those few women working in government at the time were humiliated by their emotional dismissal of the report. 

Rosen said, "Never underestimate humiliation as the source of a major social movement."

Then we had the Women's Liberation Movement. 

We will rise. We will succeed. We will lead. 


Hebephile - attraction to teen girls ages 11-14 by grown men

Hillary's Electoral Loss Is Our Fight

Letting this sink in today: In the 1980s Hillary fought for disabled children to go to preschool. She went undercover to make sure African American children were able to integrate in public schools. In Arkansas Hillary had to add the name Clinton to her name due to attacks on her by conservatives. By the time she was in the White House she had to drop the name Rodham altogether, due to more attacks on her. In the 1990s she alerted the world to the crime of sex-trafficking. Her work led to the first legislation ever that enabled us to prosecute sex-traffickers. She crossed the aisle to work with republicans on legislation that helped children; helping older children get adopted. She has always been deeply religious. 

Yet, so-called "family values" supporters voted for a man in 2016 who bragged about 'grabbing pussies.' 

They preferred this unworthy man over her. Her loss is a bellwether. It is historically significant. This loss, our loss, is huge because after sorting out the distractions you can see that this loss was all about putting a woman who fights for children in the White House. 

Let this sink in to your mind, deeply. It's important because this hate for women in our country is destroying our democracy. We will listen to the haters again, the hypocrites will run on family values tickets again.

Don't let them. It's over for them. Fight for us.

Can You Be A So-Called Pro-Lifer And Be A Feminist? Yes.

It was inevitable that an upset would momentarily take the spotlight off the power of the Women's March and place it on the archaic belief that feminists are just mean girls. The organizers of this great Women's March, that takes place the day after the inauguration of our first Russian President, originally included some anti-Trump groups who are, interestingly, anti-abortion. They were included as partners in the March, but almost as soon as they were included they were ousted when the information became public.

A mini drama unfolded and then a hashtag trended on twitter that was lauded by deplorables ( a word Hillary Clinton used to describe the white nationalist element of the Trump base) because it gave the Trumpers an opportunity to denigrate the Women's March. Purity is the enemy of forward progress.

I've done my share of pro-choice marching since 1980 and I have written the letters, donated the money and basically been on the pro-choice front lines for decades, but in my opinion the ousting of one particular anti-abortion group, "New Wave Feminists," was a mistake. (They refer to themselves as pro-life, but if I use that I'll be chastised, too.)

They were given the old heave-ho after a selective feminist media frenzy attacked the March organizers for partnering with these anti-abortion groups. "New Wave Feminists" were an official partner for almost a week and then they were not.

This morning I spoke with the head of "New Wave Feminists," Destiny Herndon-de la Rosa, and she stated that her group is not, in fact, conservative. She added that has always been an "anti-Trumper" and a political "independent." She said her group does not advocate overturning Roe vs. Wade, "We are only making criminals out of women if we try to overturn Roe."

Destiny commented on the GOP when she brought up, what she called a "Phyllis Schlafly position  "that abortion should be a partisan issue." She described that sentiment as the most "detrimental thing we ever did." It is her belief that this paved a strong path to a "Trump administration." That seems like a big leap, yet I agree.

All Trump had to utter were a few choice anti-abortion lines such as "I am pro-life" and that he believed there had to be "punishment" for women who got abortions in order to get anti-choicers to vote for him. (That authoritarian streak gets him a lot of mileage.) Trump was never outspokenly anti-choice, in fact it is common knowledge that he is pro-choice.

His words and this hyper-partisan atmosphere about women's body parts helped oust our first female President who is unequivocally pro-choice.

The GOP holds great power over the issue of abortion and that is a feminist issue.

If we are to continue to be seen as parts (pussy grabbing) and not whole women, we will stay on this narrow road to political equality.

This is where we are now in the United States, a dangerously partisan environment where everyone takes extreme sides. Running on a parallel track is the growing realization that women are having a difficult time reaching for political equality, especially in the White House, where we have a zero rating.

Hillary understood the need for common ground. She always worked across the partisan divide to get things done. As FLOTUS she worked tirelessly for children and in the 1990s, with Congressman Tom Delay, she was instrumental in spearheading and passing the Adoption and Safe Families Act of 1997. Tom Delay was anti-choice. (In 2003 Delay had a zero rating from NARAL.)

Finding common ground, where we can, moves women and children forward. 

-Jennifer Hall Lee



Why It's A Women's March For Our Country


Hillary Clinton, courtesy U.S. State Department


It's a Women's March because the women of the USA just lost their first female President - a woman who spent her life fighting for women and children. We have another generation of girls growing up into women without seeing a woman in the Oval Office. This has an affect on women. The male lock box of Oval Office power holds our country back. Boys and men see the ultimate seat of power in our nation as male. This has an affect on them. It's a march for the country because America is behind many other nations in terms of political equality for women. This affects our society economically and socially. We are fighting for our country because the way our first female president lost was due to a rogue FBI director and a foreign power. Freedom of the press and our civil liberties are at risk. We are fighting for our country because this new administration does not have respect for our institutions that help to keep our democratic republic stable. - Jennifer Hall Lee

Kellyanne's Oxygen is Filled With Lies and Toxins

Joseph Stalin

She's glib, I'll give her that. Listening to Kellyanne Conway defend Donald J. Trump is one of the new lessons in propaganda that we are now witnessing; lie about the truth and state that what really happened never really happened. This morning I forced myself to sit through the interview with Kellyanne and Chris Cuomo about Meryl Streep on CNN and it was difficult, to say the least.

I still wake up in the morning with that election day stomach ache, so where did I get the energy to watch Kellyanne?

Why in a movie, of course. I recently watched a solid drama about Stalin's Soviet Union called “East/West." It was recommended to me by a friend who had left communist Hungary and now lives here in the golden state. I often ask her what life was like back in the old country. What was it like to not have the freedom of thought and speech? She told me that the film would give me a hint of the oppression. 

She was right, it got under my skin and then shortly after I watched Kellyanne.

Truth and lies. 

It all started when Meryl Streep smacked Trump hard on television and he got mad and when he's mad he tweets. 

In what is becoming standard operating procedure for this new administration a Trump tweet storm needs to be cleaned up. Kellyanne is sent out to tell us that there was no storm after all. Keep calm and carry on. 

The interview was a volley about the infamous rally where Trump mocked a New York Times reporter who is disabled. 

Cuomo batted a truth and Kellyanne vaulted back a lie couched in her soon to be trademarked fast-talk. The words fly, but they have no substance. 

How did I find the strength? 

What offended Trump so? Was it the reference to the New York Times journalist Serge Kovaleski who he mocked (he is disabled) or Streep's mentions of all the actors at the show who came from humble backgrounds with no family money to catch them if they fell. People whose only inheritance were our American values; dreams that come true through hard work and nothing to stop you, not even the tweets of a President-elect.

He tweeted his disapproval of Streep and referred to her as a "Hillary flunky." Take that Hillary women!

Tweeting isn't news, it's a opinion thrown out into the world with no accountability. It is not in any way the act of governing, but if a politician is a propagandist they have to control the message and twitter is a useful device. 

The purpose of propaganda is twofold: It can control unrest among people and also provide cover for any unethical things going on behind closed doors. The day of the tweet storm, coincidentally, news about the confirmation hearings for Trump's cabinet centered around the Government Ethics Office. Trump is rushing the confirmations even though all the ethics reports have yet to be completed. What's an appointee without an ethics report? Unaccountable.

Chris Cuomo did what needed to be done, he challenged Conway with the facts and it was good to watch. What was more interesting is what I learned from her.

Ms. Conway tried her best to rewrite history that has plainly been recorded for all to see; Trump's mocking of Kovaleski.

Cuomo: “Is she wrong that it was wrong for Trump to make gestures like that about a man like that with disabilities?”

Conway: “That is not what he did and he has said that a thousand times, as he tweeted out today, he has said a hundred times.”

Cuomo: “He can say it a million times, look at the video.”

Conway boldly replies with a re-write. 

Conway: “He was mocking the groveling.”

Groveling? Look at the video. Go to the source. The proof is there.

If that recording is ever changed it will be witnessed by all of us. So what is the next best thing to changing that recording of Trump mocking the journalist? Saying that we saw it incorrectly. Telling us that it is we who have the problem. Forcing us to accept their new interpretation of the gesture as something else entirely.

Conway believes, I think, that if she says it often enough the critique of Trump's bullying and childish behavior will stop and we all say that he was really, “...mocking the groveling.” In other words, we will also believe the lie. 

That is how facts are changed. This is how people begin to doubt their own eyes. That is control. 

by Jennifer Hall Lee

Progressive Sexism Holds Women Back from the Oval Office

Van Jones did it again, but he didn't say oops. With one sentence he dismissed Hillary's progressive work and brought back mid-20th century sexism to the forefront. In reference to the 2016 election he said that the "Clinton days are over." Note to Jones, the Clinton family wasn't running for President, Hillary was.

Hillary is a singular person distinct from her marriage. Does Van Jones see Hillary as a wife before he sees her as a person? Yes, it's possible. (I was surprised to hear his words as I have been impressed by the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights which he co-founded. Ella Baker is a woman whose accomplishments haven't been as widely recognized as they should.)

His dismissal of Hillary is not a stand alone statement. In 2016 he referred to Hillary as a "workaholic do-gooder chick." This was during the historic primary where she broke the unspoken gendered political wall that barred women from being major party nominees. Surprisingly, Van Jones admitted this during the Democratic convention. He said it was at this point that he saw all the  "dots put together in the right way." I'm not sure if the dots were new information for Van Jones (they shouldn't have been), but there is far more he could have said about the political work of Hillary Clinton.

His words are an example of progressive sexism which is a tool used unconsciously by people on the left who see women's rights and children's rights as offshoots or subsets of the main male frame of politics. Their thinking is patriarchal.

Hillary did things no first lady has ever done. She blasted through multiple barriers for women in politics starting from the place as first lady. She turned a nationally recognized role as helpmate into a role as global warrior for women's rights. Many women can now follow in her shoes. To marginalize her as just part of a marriage is pre-women's liberation movement sexism at best. At worst it is the maintenance of patriarchal gender roles that keep the Oval Office solidly male.

In 2016 Hillary didn't run just to win. She did it to bring her significant skills to lead a nation and help change the world. Her life's work is an example of politics that includes women and children.

I was recently in Pakistan at the International Islamic University, Islamabad and female students (on the female campus) wanted to discuss the election. They were amazed that Hillary wasn't elected and added that they had been "rooting for her." Some were forlorn, others shocked, one was smiling in an embarrassed way. I could see that she was sad, yet perplexed at how Hillary did not win. She was looking at me as if to say, "Can't the American people see that we needed her?" I assured her that the majority of the voters could see them.

The words that come from the U.S. Presidency, and the President-elect, are heard around the world. (Think about this when you read his tweets and remember the "pussy" talk.)

Electing a woman such as Hillary to the Oval Office would have been a great change that would bring the issues of children and women to the forefront, globally. That changes our foreign policy and domestic policy. That "do-gooder chick" would have changed the lives of women world-wide.

Don't believe me? Study the nations where women are subjugated and notice that those countries are hotbeds for terrorism and violence. In those areas children's lives are marginalized and destroyed. We have never had a president speak to them in a way that Hillary would have spoken: as part of the mainframe of global politics.

This type of work is far more than just being a workaholic or a chick. Hillary wasn't just part of a Clinton family. Van Jones' words dismiss her truly progressive work. Perhaps he didn't connect the dots, but First Lady Michelle Obama most certainly did when she said about Hillary, "...we want a president who values and honors women, who teaches our daughters and our sons that women are full and equal human being worth, deserving of love and respect."

A woman in the Oval Office is needed now. 

Progressive sexism is real and it keeps the U.S. presidency solidly male.


Tom Hayden and Hillary

Tom Hayden and Jennifer Hall Lee, Long Beach, CA

When I think of people who came of age in the 1960s and 1970s I quickly see names and images fly through my mind: Civil Rights, Vietnam, SDS, draft dodgers, Watergate, and Tom Hayden. Tom's name is synonymous with resistance and doing good work. 

Interestingly he is not known as a fierce fighter for women's rights. In the symbolic hallways of feminist history Tom Hayden's name might emerge briefly once or twice. Yet, at the Democratic Party Executive Board Meeting in Long Beach this past June feminism is exactly what Tom Hayden and I discussed and it was in the context of Hillary Clinton.

Initially, I had met his assistant Emma Taylor, and we chatted about Hillary whom she was supporting. She introduced me to Tom, who was also a Hillary supporter.

He was dapper in his hat and tie and relaxed in his manner. He seemed at home in this raucous group of California democrats who were in the middle of state party elections (he was running for a seat.) I saw his name earlier on the list outside a ballroom door and thought "Tom Hayden. This is a long life, his and possibly mine, too. From national political fame to this state contest on a long of list of people I don't know." After Emma introduced me Tom was immediately absorbed in what I wanted to talk about - his endorsement of Hillary. 

Tom Hayden clearly took the feminist road to the White House by endorsing Hillary and not the hero of the progressive left for 2016, Bernie Sanders.  In today's polarized politics he took a risk in losing his base.

We began our talk while standing and then he asked if we could move the conversation to two empty chairs. Tom talked to me about the hate he received after he endorsed Hillary for President. Many progressive activists considered him a traitor and he was struck by the vitriol for her by leftists. It really perplexed him and I sensed he had been thinking about it. I admitted that I had been saddened and discouraged by that as well. 

He asked me my opinion and he listened carefully. I said that for me it seemed archetypal. I felt that many couldn't square the reality of a democratic woman who could see the world through feminist eyes and also through the eyes of a Senator for all and ultimately as a Commander in Chief. He mulled that over and smiled approvingly, but wouldn't commit to my theory. He had more to think about on that subject.

He felt that Bernie Sanders was too ensconced in the homogenous state of Vermont to be a fully effective President. He did say to me that a guy like Bernie was not ready for Black Lives Matter, let alone the White House. We laughed at that. 

We didn't solve one of the conundrums of our time; the resistance to a female president who has spent a lifetime fighting for children and women by those on the progressive left. Although it was enjoyable to scratch at the surface of a topic that will be discussed in the years to come. 

Tom didn't win his election that weekend in Long Beach. 

Last night I saw #TomHayden trending on Twitter and I knew he had died. I told Emma I was sorry.

Tom Hayden won't see Hillary Clinton elected, an historic journey that has been decades in the making. That makes me sad. 

Tom and Hillary, two people whose names form part of the backdrop of my life. Both of them embody the heartfelt passion of always doing good work in the world. Doing good work never ends and there is a lot of good to do. 


Do I Respect Women? Yes.

by Jennifer Hall Lee

"Does she have a fat ass? Absolutely" - Donald Trump

Secretary of State Clinton with women from Lower Mekong Women's Initiative in 2012  Photo courtesy State Department by Paul Watzlavick

We are all wringing our hands. We are thirty nine days until election day and Hillary and Donald are the choices. Some people operate under tired cliches. They think that both of them are terrible candidates. Have we become a reality show?

We have Donald, an overtly sexist businessman who doesn't pay federal taxes and Hillary, a feminist politician who has fought successfully for women and children for over forty years. The race is close, if you can believe that. 

For the feminists of the 1980s who knew we would see a female president in our future, we didn't see this coming. We have faced tremendous pushback to women running for President and now we stand at the doorway of success.

Donald, her opponent, is the nominee of the Republican Party. How the mighty have fallen.

Character is a large part of being President, just ask any Reagan loving conservative, or any social justice liberal fighter. And yet, Donald Trump, a man with basically no character, is garnering a significant amount of votes. Just yesterday in Southern California's largest newspaper, The Los Angeles Times, we are introduced to another piece of his broken sense of how to treat other people, particularly female employees.

A lawsuit against the Trump National Golf Club located in the leafy green city of Palos Verdes was the subject of a 2005 Labor Relations suit. Some parts of the court records read like a John Grisham novel about discrimination against women. According to these documents, the Director of Catering said that she witnessed Trump tell managers that the women working there weren't "pretty enough" and that they should be "fired."

If you are steeped in television shock dramas and reality shows, you can shrug it off as inconsequential and say that's Trump being Trump. Well, there is an old-fashioned saying that often absolved boys from doing bad things; boys will be boys. This bouncy phrase is alive today and that's why Trump gets a lot of passes among his base.

How anyone can vote for Trump after hearing that he calls women "pigs" or judges their bodies as not being good enough is unthinkable to me. 

Let's look at this from a different angle. Look at this election from my point of view.

Almost every day we read another story about sexual assault of girls in schools or college campuses. Every parent who reads these stories can't help but think of their own daughters. Women are clearly still seen as objects for male consumption, despite our advances for women. Trump's words are evidence of this twisted value system. If he were to ever sit in the Oval Office his words would ring out across the globe. Let's imagine this particular Trump sentence vocalized from the White House, "I'd look her right in that fat ugly face of hers."

That would be heard by people in countries where so-called "honor killings" and rape are considered a male privilege.

On the other side of this election we have our Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, who many people distrust, yet there are no lawsuits filed against her, although many have tried and failed. Her family's charity, unlike Trump's, has created big changes in the world such as lowering the cost of malarial drugs.

But there is one thing I can't seem to get out of my mind. I think about it often. It's about sex trafficking.

First Lady Hillary Clinton meeting with women in India in 1995

When Hillary was first lady she shined a light on the crime of sex trafficking for all the world to see. Back in 1997 we weren't talking about this crime like we do today, it was unknown to most of us.

It happened like this: During a women's conference, co-organized by Hillary, Ukrainian women approached her and asked for help. Young women were disappearing from their towns and villages, lured away by job opportunities and never seen again.

Hillary helped these women and her work led to the first international piece of legislation that made sex trafficking a crime. It enabled us to prosecute sex traffickers. 

This is just part of Hillary's early work. It is an example of her consistent drive to better the lives of all people.

You want change? Well, this is where the rubber meets the road folks. So I am perplexed by women and men who don't trust her. I think they don't trust women who have moved successfully in traditionally male areas of expertise.  

Sexism runs deep even in the hearts of the most fervent progressive.

I shudder to think that something else might be true. Could it be that women politicians who have been successful in bettering women's lives around the globe inspire distrust in many Americans? 

It's a chilling thought.

If true, then how do we ever help women in countries unlike our own where religious zealots wield violent power over women and girls?

Do we have the courage to sit back and objectively see our own biases that have possibly kept our Oval Office entirely male.

We don't need father figures to guide our moral lives simply because they are male. We are adults and we choose how we want to solve the problems of our world, which includes fighting terrorism in countries where women are subjugated (try finding a terrorist country where women have equality).

Sexism is not a side issue to bigger problems. It is woven tightly into the laws and religious beliefs of countries where girls and women are seen as less than human.

If the abusive treatment of women in Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq upsets you and you want it stopped, then Hillary is your candidate, not Donald. 

Hillary tells us that this a tight race. How can that be?

What if all the fence sitters and third party voters decided to stand with the women around the world who have survived gang rapes and the young women and girls here in the United States who have survived sexual assault on a college campus. If they took a solid step in support of these women and emphatically voted for Hillary without hesitation, we would watch her pull away in the polls and walk into the Oval Office with a sizable lead. 

Or we can keep it close and fear a future where Donald could utter his opinions about women from the White House. When asked in a 1992 interview with noted misogynist Howard Stern if he respected women Trump replied, "Uh, I can't say that either."

I don't know how you tell a pre-teen girl that her President doesn't respect women and expect that girl to love herself.

Maybe we don't have individual megaphones with which to tell the women and girls of the world that we want to help them. But, we do have our vote. 

You want to change the world?

Vote for Her.