But their noble missions seem to hit a speed bump when it comes time to defend conservatives who happen to fall into their protective sphere.

Earlier this month, a gay reality show star claimed he was assaulted for being conservative. The incident didn’t draw massive press and outrage, so Big Hollywood reached out to GLAAD for a response. Their reaction was muted and brief:

“GLAAD’s mission is to fight for people, Republican or Democrat, who are targeted for being lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.  No one should be targeted for their political beliefs either, but advocacy around those issues is outside of our mission.  That’s what you guys do.”

At least GLAAD’s reaction to the alleged assault didn’t actively attack the right. That’s precisely the tactic chosen by NOW after it took several days to drum up outrage over a sitting Congresswoman being grossly insulted on a late night talk show:

I am heartened to see that conservatives are learning how hostility toward women in public life functions and and how it feels to be on the receiving end. However, I can’t help but wonder why their outrage is limited to those they condemn as liberals for taking shots at the Bachmanns and the Palins of the world. Rush Limbaugh and his ilk are infamous for using sexist, racist, classist, homophobic remarks against anyone who doesn’t march to his extremist drumbeat. NOW regularly calls out sexism directed at conservative women as well as feminists, and we often speak up to remind everyone, including our political allies, that these types of slurs are harmful to all women, and they need to stop. The Roots’ song choice for Bachmann’s entrance was disrespectful, degrading and juvenile, and the bandleader’s apology was weak. Thankfully, host Jimmy Fallon and NBC stepped up with more sincere apologies. Now, will the right wing start policing its own?  I’m not holding my breath. – NOW President Terry O’Neill

You have to read a few sentences in before unearthing the proper outrage.

NOW did far better when Newsweek ran a nasty cover story on Bachmann entitled “The Queen of Rage.” Yet the organization sat on its collective hands when a member of Team Obama treated a cardboard cutout of Hillary Clinton in a disgusting fashion.

So, which is it? Do people on the right deserve the protection of NOW and GLAAD, or is it a case-by-case situation?

President Barack Obama’s celebrity backers simply refuse to pin any blame on him for a woeful economy or the litany of broken promises that have become the hallmark of his nearly three years in office.

Consider 50 Cent’s response when asked by the uber-low rated Piers Morgan about the president’s tenure in the White House:

“I think he inherited America in a terrible state and it’s pretty tough to get things right back into order.”

The bullet riddled rapper initially backed someone other than Obama during the 2008 presidential race, but not due to any conflicts with Obama or his campaign:

“I was a supporter of Hillary because I wasn’t sure if America was ready for an African-American president. I didn’t know what was going to happen in the process, because it could have been a mess.”

Firey visionaries of The Progressive New World Order are scheduled for casting their Hollywood scripts post-election lest the unthinkable happen and Sarah Palin become the 45th President of the United States.

It is actually an infuriating time for Hollywood because of the “Wait” and “The Hold”.

Since massive amounts of money are involved, the second stage of the Obama Nation really can’t explode until The Man is back in office.

Educating Americans can be so laborious at times.

Why?

Because, as that Marxist Point Man, Bill Maher, says, “They’re stupid!”

These obstacles to Obamacare and our President’s even more revolutionary plans for American energy?

They’re stalled under Congressional challenges and the slim but terrifying possibility that The Man might not be reelected after all.

There is talk of a Hillary-Clinton-Challenge to Obama’s certain candidacy.

Another 1968?

Obama will run. That is for certain. He’s no Lyndon B. Johnson with an unwanted war on his hands. Even if Americans are a bit disgruntled with the endless battles in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, President Obama’s no quitter.

Besides, Hillary may take the job that Roger Ailes of Fox News is offering her.

Boy, wouldn’t that be a bold finger to her former pals in the DNC if she went to work for Fox?!

“Take that for abandoning me in 2008!”

Hillary’s Left but not a Radical Left like Obama. By contrast to Obama, she could be sold to America as almost palatable.

That would be something: Sarah v. Hillary!

“Sarah hasn’t even announced a run for the Presidency, Michael!”

She will.

“You’re sure of that?”

Yup.

“Why?”

If she doesn’t run, she will never know whether she was right or not to run alongside John McCain in 2008. She’s a born competitor and to not run would mean she’s not really Mamma Grizzly. That would be an impossible reality for her to live with.

“What if they change her image to Mamma Fox?!”

Sarah doesn’t hide like a fox in a hole. She’s right through the front door. Without running? She would no longer be Sarah Palin. Besides, she’s still too young to play the wizened duenna to the Republican Party, merely advising them on political strategy. She’s a player.

She can win for sure.

She can win!

“I beg your pardon!!”

America is, as they say, “on” to the slick exterior of Barack Obama. Sarah is even beyond a breath of fresh air to the rancid, smelly corruptions going on in both the Republican and Democratic Parties.

I don’t see how the Republican Party can live without her!

I don’t see how America can survive without her!!

“And if she doesn’t run?”

Obama will be reelected. He’s the new Jimmy Carter and without a Ronald Reagan Carter would have been back in office.

“So Palin is the new Reagan?”

Better than a new Reagan. She’s the complete symbol of pro-life. Nothing less will put the United States back on track. She doesn’t talk pro-life. She and Trig are the very meaning of pro-life.

In the same way, she doesn’t talk the renewal of basic American values. She is America.

Are Americans really as “stupid” as Bill Maher says they are?

If so, then they all must, at heart, be as “stupid” as the elitist press of both the Republican and Democratic Parties say Sarah Palin is.

If the “stupid” American people see enough of themselves in Sarah Palin, they will, indeed, put her into office.

Ms. Palin is here! She’s the profoundest of quintessentially American realities! To not elect her is for America to sell not only herself out but the rest of the world as well.

To not elect her is to not know America’s greatest enemy and that enemy can be summed up in two words: the Obama Nation.

Lincoln predicted that America would not be destroyed by a foreign power. If she dies, it will be by suicide.

Sarah is the only life raft America has right now. Any other candidate for the Republican Party, Romney in particular, will eventually be in the back room cutting deals with a virulently Progressive Democratic Party, a radically Leftist’s poison that has, with Obama, proven its own promise: “the fundamental transformation of the United States of America.”

After four years of Obama, the Dr. Jeckyll of America has already become Mr. Hyde. This radical experiment with a known Marxist in the Presidency?

Suicide.

Ms. Palin has said she will announce in the near future.

Should she even announce her withdrawal, I trust these words and those of others might help her to reconsider.

Sarah Palin is America.

America at her most beautiful, her most honest, her most simply eloquent and her most resilient.

Resilience is what America needs now.

Without Sarah Palin as President, America cannot bounce back.

Many might call a President Palin “bold medicine”.

With America on the edge of suicide, Sarah Palin is the “shock treatment” needed by the entirely moribund, self-defeated and suicidally depressed world.

The human race must either be pro-life or pro-death. Those “enlightened despots” who think otherwise and are certain we can “split hairs” into whole crops of Progressive New World Order Thinking?

Into the very, bipartisan Progressive Mess that America finds herself in now?

Again I say, it is the subtlest form of suicide.

Neo-Soviet Russia, Red China and Radical Islam are just waiting for the American people to make that same mistake again.

Don’t make them happy.

Elect Sarah Palin as President of the United States.

Author’s note: There are a couple of spoilers in this review. If you are dying to watch this movie when it is released in 2011 don’t read any further. 

When BH editor extraordinaire John Nolte asked me if I wanted to do a Sucker Punch review of the script for The Iron Lady, the upcoming film featuring Meryl Streep as Margaret Thatcher, my response was (and I quote), “Yes!!!” After reading the script, however, I almost wish I had declined the offer.

Why? Well, when I think of Margaret Thatcher, I think of an extraordinary woman who defied the odds to become the UK’s first woman prime minister and who did her best to bring her nation, kicking and screaming, into a period of prosperity - a nation that was on the brink of financial collapse when she first came to office in 1979. Being human like the rest of us, she had triumphs, and also some failures. For a comprehensive look at both her successes and what she might have done differently, see this article at The Heritage Foundation.

Unfortunately, Thatcher (formally known as Baroness Thatcher, having had the lifetime peerage bestowed upon her by Queen Elizabeth II in 1992), after a lifetime of strength, courage and fortitude, is now known to be suffering from dementia, a terrible disease in which one begins to forget little things and slowly forgets more and more. I cannot imagine how frightening it must be to begin to forget one’s loved ones and, perhaps, oneself.

But it’s great fodder for a movie, especially if the subject is a strong conservative woman whose policies have always been loathed by the left. Who cares if she’s still alive but unable to defend herself against the film’s implications?

The Iron Lady, written by Abi Morgan and produced by Damian Jones, is a bit of a roller coaster and it was hard at times to keep track of what time period it was, even with it written right there on the page in front of me. Flitting back and forth from present day (noted in the script as 2008) to 1943 to 1990 and many different years in between, we “see” the world through the eyes of a Thatcher who is losing touch with reality and who frequently travels back through time to relive a life once full of activity and purpose - a life which has now been reduced to the occasional dinner party and trips to the doctor. And don’t forget the whisky – lots of whisky. To dull the pain of what’s become a menial existence, I suppose.

Once surrounded by powerful men and the occasional woman, Thatcher’s constant companions now consist of her home health aide, her private secretary, and her grown  daughter Carol (Olivia Colman), who pops in often to check on Mum and make sure she is okay.

Oh, and husband Denis Thatcher (Jim Broadbent). Trouble is, Denis died back in 2003. Lady Thatcher is talking to a ghost – or, rather, a lively figment of her imagination that only she can see and hear, causing concern for the few people who she sees on a daily basis. In the film, Denis acts as her confidante and her conscience – at times trying to cheer her up by doing silly things like wearing a pink turban, while at other times he lectures that no one listens to her anymore because she is just an “old lady who is losing her marbles” and when a public bored with socialism votes the conservatives back into power, “they’ll wheel you out to show again.”

Denis also – and this is key – claims that what Lady Thatcher achieved during her long and storied career was really not any of her doing. He says that all of her accomplishments “would have happened anyway darling” because that’s “the way politics always goes” and she was “just in the right place at the right time.” He continues by saying that she’s “yesterday’s news, just another footnote in history.”

Isn’t that the narrative about Ronald Reagan,  Lady Thatcher’s international friend and ally? He had nothing to do with the fall of the Soviet Union and the eventual destruction of the Berlin Wall – he just happened to be in office when it happened. Mikhail Gorbachev is the one who deserves all of the credit, right? In this, The Iron Lady is simply another vehicle to for the contemporary Left to rewrite history more to their liking, despite polls like this one where Lady Thatcher is considered the most influential woman 20 years after leaving office.

The script also alludes to Lady Thatcher being an absentee mother who placed her career above the well-being of her children. There is truth to this claim, as her own daughter was quoted as saying, “A mother cannot reasonably expect her grown-up children to boomerang back, gushing cosiness and make up for lost time. Absentee Mum, then Gran in overdrive is not an equation that balances.” But that doesn’t mean that Thatcher’s children are thrilled with the upcoming portrayal of their mother. In fact, according to a family friend, they are “appalled” by it and “think it sounds like some Left-wing fantasy.” Blood is thicker than water, after all.

Women have always walked a fine line when it comes to balancing family with career, and women in politics face even more scrutiny than the average working mother. But while the Left has always told us that a woman’s place is not in the home but out furthering her own career ambitions, when a conservative woman does just that, she’s demonized by those who might naturally be her ally.

However, there are some  depictions of Lady Thatcher’s maternal nature in the script. Lady Thatcher is depicted as a woman who, no matter how hard she tries, will never be “one of the guys.” What’s an alienated female politician to do? Act like a mother hen to both her husband and colleagues, buttoning the cuff links of one and pouring tea for another, saying, “Shall I be mother?” This script is chock full of such moments calculated to show Lady Thatcher in a most unflattering light.

It’s always galling to see conservative women held to different standards than their liberal counterparts. Take this comparison of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin by the ever-classy Maureen Dowd, for example. Dowd claims Hillary has finally come into her own and has conquered any doubt that she can’t manage without riding Bill’s coattails, while Sarah – who worked her way to where she is without having a politically powerful husband – is described as “bizarre babe-at-large, a Nixon with hair extensions” and a “whiny presidential contender.” Keep it classy, Maureen. I might suggest that your bile toward Sarah is reflective of your own fading beauty and inability to form a lasting relationship with that special someone, but that wouldn’t be nice.

Hillary’s famous comment about deciding to forge ahead with her career after marriage instead of “baking cookies and having teas” also comes to mind in The Iron Lady during a flashback where Lady Thatcher tells hubby Denis that she refuses to be one of the women who stays “silent and pretty on the arm of their husband…washing up the teacups.” In fact, she declares, she “will not die washing a teacup.”

Guess what the Iron Lady is depicted as doing in the final scene? 

Cameron McCracken, managing editor of Pathe Films, says of the movie:

“It is a film about power and the price that is paid for power. In that sense, it is the story of every person who has ever had to balance their private life with their public career.” He says Lady Thatcher’s health will be featured, but insists that it will be “treated with appropriate sensitivity”. He adds of the film: “Although fictional, it will be fair and accurate.”

I have to wonder: Someday, if (heaven forbid) Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or another powerful female politician is struck down with dementia, will filmmakers do a ”fictional” but “fair and accurate” movie about a woman who preferred to be a formidable political force to staying at home with her daughter, creating a completely unsympathetic character who deserves to face impending death alone with only memories of a career fit for being “just another footnote in history” for company? 

I leave you to guess.

Or, on the other hand, just how naive is the Secretary of State to make a promise which neither she nor the Obama Nation she serves can possibly insure might be kept at this point? Hmmm  … 2015?!

Well, one has to remember that she was blindly ambitious enough to marry the now legendarily known promiscuity of that most politically ambitious and spiritually hypocritical of Progressive Christians, William Clinton.

He’s right up there with the pro-abortion Catholic, Nancy Pelosi.

Hillary Clinton, however, fell for more than Bill’s whole act.

She bought his bottomless greed for power.

If Hillary’s alter ego, Sarah Palin, wins the White House in 2012, those missiles will be in Poland before the New Year, 2014!

2015?

Where, when and how did that number pop into her head?

Well, only she could answer that, and that is exactly how the White House will leave it.

Unless, of course, Robert Gibbs is asked the same embarrassing question.

Russian American “reset button” relations will be hanging on his very lips.

Of course, by the time the MSM comes around to asking that question, all corners of the Obama Nation’s public relations ploys with neo-Soviet Russia will have been ironed out.

“Mr. Medvedev, that’s Hillary’s role! To play the hawk!”

Hillary is nothing for Moscow to worry about and apparently, according to the Christian Science Monitor, Vladimir Putin particularly must not be concerned in the least.

Why?

The Kremlin was warned that Hillary would be out there playing “The Tigress”.

That is her job now, hanging a “pair” on the President.

Poor Hillary.

Is she now out there trying to catch up with Sarah Palin’s “Mamma Grizzlies”?

Does she really believe she’s anymore than a puppet for a foreign policy that is preparing for the surrender of America to the Red Chinese and neo-Soviet version of the New World Order?

Could the Secretary of State for the United States of America possibly be that naïve?

Yes.

She fell for Bill Clinton.

Now she must serve Obama and her husband with the same, seemingly bottomless naïveté.

Both Bill and Obama actually but secretly believe that the Presidency is a man’s job.

Not a woman’s job.

“Politics,” as both Clinton and his longest adviser James Carville have declared, is “a contact sport.”

However, Bill is certainly going to be there to make Hillary think she has a shot in 2012 of unseating Obama.

With Bill helping her out she can’t possibly help but lose.

The Nobel Peace Prize will be her consolation, as it was for that most embarrassing of American Vice-Presidents, Al Gore.

However, that could very well be the overall game plan: using Hillary’s prospects for the next Presidential election to keep America’s and Hillary’s mind off of what will most certainly … must certainly happen long before the Primaries have squeezed out their candidates.

A national emergency like her husband’s Oklahoma City Bombing will occur that must just … well … unavoidably force President Obama to declare a “national emergency” … and yes …. Oh, my God!  

“Martial Law”!

Yippee!!

Woody Allen gets his wish!

President Obama as dictator!!

Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau dropped the Martial Law bomb on Canada for considerably less than an Oklahoma City Bombing. He did so after two kidnappings and one murder. Just to see if he could do it and get away with it.

He did!!

If Trudeau can, Obama thinks the President of the United States can.

Of course, that idea is insane … but so is Karl Marx’s entire notion of a Communist dictatorship.

However, because Mao is still succeeding in Red China, the Obama Nation’s Maoist prejudices have been corroborated as … uh … “forward-looking” … uh, yes … Progressive.

Most of the psychiatrists of the English-speaking world are Progressives like Obama and Bill and Hillary. They’re the same kind of “scientist” that Karl Marx thought of himself as.

Economics to Marx was a “science”.

The still raging wars between disciples of Keynes and Friedman or Marx and Winston Churchill give the lie to economics as a science. It is now the most vital corner of all viable philosophies. As much an art as it is a mathematical supposition.

Marx, however, is now the sane one, of course, and the Catholics particularly are somewhere in the bourgeois insanity of the pro-life movement.

Hmmm … pro-life is insane and pro-choice … or pro-abortion … or pro-death and euthanasia is sane.

I did ten years with a psychiatrist who would claim the necessities of personal survival are the obligations of sanity and therefore blowing with not just any wind but the Big Wind of Progressivism is unquestionably the sanest alternative, if only to survive.

Then again, this doctor thought of himself as a scientist.

Odd how his greatest passion was the opera.

My later sessions with a psychoanalyst proved vastly more fruitful. Her undeniably Freudian training had made her the artist I required at the time.

With the patience of Job, and my faith in God and my Lord, I was slowly but unrelentingly led out of the hell that eventually became America under Barack Hussein Obama.

With Esther as Hillary Clinton’s favorite Biblical figure and Job as mine, I wonder if her marriage to Bill Clinton, rather like Esther’s Queenly relationship to the Persian King Ahaseurus, was made to lead her own version of Israel, all American women, out of what she considered America’s very male bondage.

Leave it to Slick Willy to convince Hillary he would be her best friend.

The Feminist’s most liberating sword, of course, the Supreme Court’s Roe v Wade decision of 1973, fell upon America almost twenty years before Hillary’s husband was to reach the White house.

Now it’s not liberation but ideology she is helping President Obama sell.

However, her “Esther” appears to be a decreasingly loyal subject of King Obama.

As a display of the President’s Progressively bizarre genius, it is Hillary’s growing disloyalty, which President Obama is counting on.

Hillary is there to convince the more conventional membership of the Democratic Party that President Obama is, indeed, sincerely committed to American freedom.

Our President is a self-admitted, self-exposed Marxist and Islamic sympathizer with everything that is essentially not American.

As Secretary of State to such a King, how can Hillary as Esther maintain her profoundly naïve belief that her President will protect her liberation?

Not to worry, Bill has convinced her that he and his wife … and James Carville, of course … can take back the Oval Office from King Obama.

How repeatedly naïve can you get?

With the Progressive version of George and Gracie, stay tuned!

“Say goodnight, Hillary.”

“Goodnight Hillary!”

According to the State Department’s Rewards for Justice Program there is a bounty of up to $10 million on Omar for sheltering Osama bin-Laden and his al-Qaeda network in the years prior to the September 11 attacks as well as the period during and immediately thereafter.

At the end of March, US Military Intelligence was informed by US operatives working in the Af/Pak theater on behalf of the D.O.D. that Omar had been detained by Pakistani authorities. One would assume that this would be passed up the chain and that the Secretary of Defense would have been alerted immediately. From what I am hearing, that may not have been the case.

When this explosive information was quietly confirmed to United States Intelligence ten days ago by Pakistani authorities, it appeared to take the Defense Department by surprise. No one, though, is going to be more surprised than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It seems even with confirmation from the Pakistanis themselves, she was never brought up to speed.

Over the weekend, Clinton accused Pakistani Government officials of “holding back” on bin Laden intelligence. In an interview Sunday on CBS “60 Minutes,” she said:

“I believe that somewhere in this government are people who know where Usama bin Laden and Al Qaeda is, where Mullah Omar and the leadership of the Afghan Taliban is, and we expect more cooperation to help us bring to justice, capture or kill those who attacked us on 9/11.”

They know all right and so do we, at least when it comes to Mullah Omar. We have known since the end of March and we had it confirmed ten days ago by the Pakistanis. So why didn’t the State Department and the CIA know?

Developing.

Thursday morning, the 21st of January found me climbing off an airplane in Las Vegas.  By the time the day was over Senator-elect Scott Brown was in Washington, Air America was dead, Keith Olbermann’s head had exploded (twice), and Citizens United v. FEC had overturned a century of campaign finance law. It seemed appropriate that it was snowing in Las Vegas. 

David Bossie: Chairman of the Board and President, Citizens United

First of all let me clear up any possible misunderstandings: I do not consider myself a great writer/director.  I have no connections in Hollywood. I don’t come from money or familial fame.  I have no patrons in politics.  I don’t have a degree from some hot film school or Ivy League institution. I’m not a genius or political wunderkind.  And, I don’t pretend that any of you have seen the film that spawned this Supreme Court case.  So, what does that make me? I think that makes me about like most Americans. 

I’ve been fascinated by the furor and fury over the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC.  It’s curious to be affiliated with, “the most irresponsible decision by the Supreme Court since the Dred Scott decision.”  The left has screamed bloody murder about the demise of democracy.  The left-brain has so firmly fixed the idea that “corporation” = evil, villainy, torture (George Bush), into its autonomic system that a clear reading of the case and decision is impossible for them. 

Even President Obama seems to forget that he crushed McCain in corporate dollar contribution totals. In fact, Goldman Sachs was his largest corporate contributor.  The press screams about unfettered lobbyists as if they are the zombies from 28 Days and yet fail to connect the fact that lobbying has seen its greatest proliferation under our present President (this from the candidate who promised to get rid of lobbyists).  CU v. FEC represents everything wrong with America when viewed through the left lens.  However, my experience as the director of the film at the eye of the storm, does nothing but reaffirm everything that I believe is good about America. 

Making Hillary The Movie gave an opportunity to an unremarkable American to tell the stories of other, more remarkable, Americans whose lives intersected with Hillary Clinton.  I didn’t set out to create a film that would go to the Supreme Court and change electoral/political history.  I just wanted to find interesting stories from people not unlike you and me and record them.  One of the most difficult parts of making a film is deciding what to leave in and what to take out.  With then Senator Clinton, that problem was exponentially magnified.  One of the Clintons’ former associates described them as a tornado destroying everything in their path.  There was, indeed, a wide swath of destroyed institutions, credibility, and human lives to sift through in the wake of the Clintons.  We could have cut a weeklong mini-series with the amount of material we had.  Rather we settled on a handful of personal stories from people not very different from you or me—people whose lives were crushed in the Hillary Clinton vortex.  

Now there was nothing special about making a film on Hillary Clinton that lead to the Supreme Court.  It could’ve been a film about any political figure.  In fact, in 2004, there was a false start in the direction of a court confrontation when Citizens United’s film Celsius 41.11 elicited a finding from the FEC.  Michael Moore’s film was also cited and release patterns for the films had to comply with applicable election/campaign finance law. Citizens United Executive Producer, Dave Bossie, kept making political films realizing that if he threw enough gas on the McCain-Feingold-free-speech fire, eventually the FEC would bite.  And bite they did.  The rest is history. 

Looking back more than two years since we finished the film, I’m amazed by the ride.  I met and became friends with political and social figures who have impacted the march of nations.  I shot in the location where our first president bid farewell to his troops.  I shared the grief of fathers for sacrificed sons and sons for murdered fathers.  I got to finish a film without a studio’s demands or government’s interference. I harshly criticized, in a public forum, a former First Lady and President and never feared reprisal upon me or upon my family.  I watched as an expression of political speech from a small group of citizens had its day in front of the highest court in the land.  I sat in the chambers of the Supreme Court next to people who had travelled all night to be present to hear the arguments.  I watched as a new Justice sat on the bench for the first time.  I saw the gears of our Constitutional machine work and churn to render justice and took for granted that at the end of that process, no buildings burned; no blood was shed.  Whatever opinions may be, relative to the application of the ruling, there can be no doubt that the journey of this average citizen unequivocally attests to the greatness of the country in which those rulings will be applied. 

Don’t agree?…you can make your own movie. 

I rest my case.

The Mayor of DelusionalVille:

“I think the Obama administration has followed the same playbook, to a large extent, almost verbatim, as the Bush administration. I don’t see anything different,” the activist movie actor said of Obama’s policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East. “On the domestic side, look here: What’s so clear is that this country from the outset is projecting the interests of wealth and property. Look at the bailout of Wall Street. Why not the bailout of Main Street?”

“He may be just a different face, and that face may happen to be black—and if it were Hillary Clinton, it would happen to be a woman,” says Danny Glover. “But what choices do they have within the structure?” …

Glover is among a growing chorus of African-American opinion leaders who are publicly and privately expressing varying degrees of resignation, disappointment, and outright anger concerning a presidency on which so many hopes have ridden.

How much socialism will satisfy this chorus of opinion leaders?