Dear Ms. Flanders,

Another great show!

Can’t help thinking that, although the problems of racism and sexism are core problems that must be solved before we can get to “equality”, that expending our energies for individual victories, whether of “race” or gender, in electoral politics is rather like fiddling while Rome burns. I share the belief of many others that neither Obama nor Clinton (and certainly, if it must be said, McCain) has any ideas that will significantly “change” anything for the better. The MSM has wanted us to focus on race and gender or pastors or whatever because it delivers more viewers to their advertisers and at the same time distracts us from noticing that the candidates policies will also deliver more of our dollars to their advertisers - neither Dem would get us out of Iraq ( they talk about ending the “war” but not the occupation), neither would get us universal healthcare (they talk about making it “more affordable” with computers, etc.), neither would deal effectively with our current trade practices which underlie most, if not all our current economic free-fall (”enforcing” current trade agreements which HAVE no useful mechanisms of enforcement); their “solutions” will only further pad the pockets of the defense, insurance, and multinat’l corps for whose benefit these systems now operate. I do believe, though I “hope” I’m wrong, that the only thing that will change if Obama, as he stands now, is elected is the color of the guy who sits in the oval office. As a symbol for many that will be nice, but for the fundamental things that are important in the everyday lives of both black and white people, of both women and men, issues that may even amount to a difference between life and death, the choice offered seems to be palliation for the last stages of a terminal disease (Dem) vs a cyanide pill (Rep.). And, sadly, too often what passes for “progressive” media these days has followed the MSM lead and spent way too much time on identity politics. I applaud you for pointing out how little the candidates positions on all the issues people (of all colors and genders) say are important to them are actually discussed let alone examined, other than a cursory description and a note that Clinton’s and Obama’s are alike and McCain’s is different. And I note that when you try to get to such a discussion, too often even your guests pull you away. Please, Ms. Flanders, don’t let them pull you away.

I have been around and involved in local politics long enough to know what happens when you pay too much attention to getting “the bad guys” out and not enough to whom you are putting in their place - the champaign is heady but the hangover is a bummer.

One other thing of note this show pointed out is what Ms. Ramdas noted about the Western women’s movement - too much, if not exclusively, focused on reproductive rights. One of your other guests already inserted what I fear will be the main position of feminists in this country - “You must vote for Obama to keep Roe v Wade”. What this means is that any other candidate who may actually have better ideas on how to keep ALL of us safe, in our health, our homes, our jobs will not only be dismissed but castigated as a threat to their preferred Supreme Court choices. How sad to be so short sighted! I am a pro-choice female, but I also know that a) the failure to effectively challenge the Dems,, allowing them to keep their pro-corporate agenda, will result in more people suffering from war, lack of healthcare, and economic ruin than from the risk of Roe going under and b) if all else fails, any SC nominee can be filibustered ad nauseum, which is something the “wonderful” Dems refused to do re Bush’s choices. I was, and will be again I fear, disappointed that too many women can’t see that.

Your show is the best thing to come along in a long time. I think you seem willing to look at “the big picture”. Sometimes this means swimming upstream, without rose colored goggles. Please, for all our sakes, keep swimming!