How the %@#* Do You Think She Got Here?

[NanceGreggs]

And still it continues: the OPs and reply posts insisting that Hillary Clinton is losing her bid to become the Democratic nominee due to blatant sexism.

According to some here, this type of woman-hating runs rampant not only within the party, but among liberals and progressives everywhere.

It does not matter a whit that Hillary managed – apparently despite this never-ending, oh-so-obvious sexism – to come within a hair’s breadth of the nomination. Nor does it matter that when a field of more-than-capable candidates was narrowed down to two, she, the only woman in the field, was one of the two left standing.

Perhaps the argument we are meant to accept is that the Boys in Charge simply allowed her to get where she is in order to lull female voters into a false sense of equality – or, even more dastardly, permitted Hill to get this far simply for the maniacal pleasure of pulling the rug out from under her at the last possible moment, as a means of reminding all women that they should remain aware of their secondary place in society, as well as the political arena.

These posters decry the unfairness that women face as a result of sexism and yet, for many of them, the obvious response to such real or imagined unfairness is to threaten to not vote come November, and/or leave the party entirely if Hillary is not the nominee.

In other words, outraged at the idea that women are victims, they voluntarily choose to assume the very role they insist has been forced upon them by an insensitive, uncaring world.

What is truly astounding about this victim-of-sexism meme being spouted ad nauseam by Hillary supporters is their obvious disconnect from the factual realities of the life and times of their candidate-of-choice.

Can anyone doubt that Hillary, now sixty years of age, has often dealt with real sexism in the workplace throughout her life? Can anyone doubt that being an exceptionally attractive woman, she has experienced actual sexual harassment over her long career?

And yet she is where she is – a candidate for the presidency of the United States – undoubtedly as a direct result of the fact that she didn’t give in, didn’t give up, and didn’t allow such obstacles to impede her from pursuing her ultimate goal.

While the Hillary-is-being-shut-out-because-she’s-a-female crowd actually brag about removing themselves from the electoral process due to the injustices allegedly done to their candidate, they choose to ignore the fact that this woman would not be in this race were it not for her determination to not be shut out of the process under any circumstances.

One can only wonder where Hillary would be today had she adopted the attitude that many of her supporters here are actively advocating: quit and go home, refuse to stand your ground as an equal participant in the voting process, slink off like a hard-done-by female as a means of proving you’re not exactly that.

Hillary’s campaign has lost support; that is undeniable. It is due to a myriad of factors, from contradictory statements re Michigan and Florida, to holding out McCain as a more viable candidate than a fellow Democrat, to attempting to move the goalposts every time she falls behind, to the Bosnia lie that caused serious questioning of her credibility on any number of issues.

You will note that none of the above have anything to do with her gender. And yet, according to some posters here, these setbacks have everything to do with sexism – as though this same behavior by a male candidate would have been accepted without question.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the presidency – although it goes without saying that were she ultimately chosen as the Democratic nominee, I would vote for her without hesitation.

But the idea that some Hillary supporters will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless it is a woman candidate is not only abhorrent to members of the party, I would venture to say it would be abhorrent to Hillary Clinton herself – because if that kind of mindset was something she approved of as a legitimate recourse, she wouldn't be where she is right now. She'd be home baking cookies, having given up her rightful place in the political system the first time she was referred to as being just a girl.

[DarienComp]

1. Damn, you write well.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

[papau]

116. She does write well - I look forward to the discussion of Obama using race victim to end NH win Mo

[anigbrowl]

154. The mo she got from winning the same number of delegates?

Come to think of it, that was where this whole popular vote vs. delegate count nonsense started. She won more votes, but she and Obama both won 9 delegates. The only momentum she got, in my view, was from not getting crushed as some polls were predicting.

Obama didn't need to play any victim card in South Carolina - I had my own startled reaction to Bill Clinton's remarks, thanks very much. I don't think I was alone in finding the tone of his remarks inappropriate.

[polpilot]

174. Wanting a 'woman' as president is like wanting a 'Texan' for president..senseless

[butterfly77]

217. That's how I see it...

I always wondered how the loser could keep getting almost the same amount of delegates as the winner. She would be no where if it was winner take all.

[jonestonesusa]

239. I look forward to when you make that argument.

This is a contention you are making without detail - what do you mean, and where is the support for your view?

[cliffordu]

2. Let me echo that sentiment, damn, you write well....K&R

:kick: :kick:










:patriot:

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. My dear Nance!

You've put your intelligent mind to work, and here's another one hit out of the damn ballpark!

I don't have a clue how you do it, but please don't ever stop!

K&R

Thank you!

:patriot:

[Catherina]

4. I don't get it either and find it offensive. K&R

Cartoon removed. Not using rightwing cartoons.

[DarienComp]

6. Catherina-- you're cool and all, but you may want to reconsider posting the Glenn McCoy cartoon

He's a conservative douchebag.

<edited for clarity>

[Catherina]

8. I'm not good with who all the cartoonists are

Thank you. I'll delete that one from my repertoire but painfully because I think it's so funny. Thanks Darien :hi:

[DarienComp]

10. No problem, I had assumed that you weren't aware of who he was.

And you're right, it is rather funny. Which, actually, is quite rare for McCoy.

:toast:

[Catherina]

17. These primaries are so nerve-wracking that I started

looking for cartoons to break the stress. It's weird because I never cared for them that much before but now I understand. Thanks for letting me know. :hi:

[ekwhite]

13. Thanks for deleting the cartoon Catherina N/T

:hi:

[Catherina]

18. Welcome

:hi: Now you both have me curious about that cartoonist!

[DarienComp]

23. You'll end up pissed off... research at your own risk!

[thevoiceofreason]

5. Damn you and your vulcan logic

K&R

[Major Hogwash]

133. Hahahahaha - is that what it takes to get through to those people these days?

A mindmeld?

LoL

[damonm]

274. Self Delete

[woolldog]

7. Strange that the most progressive wing of the party

would suddenly become rampant sexists during the Clinton campaign.

[Evergreen Emerald]

195. They certainly showed their true colors...

my guess is that they did not "suddenly become..." but, when the power structure is is in jeopardy, the sexists unveil themselves.

Of course we need to look no further than this board for proof of that.

[jgraz]

9. Another excellent post, Nance

Thanks for saying this so clearly. Wonderful essay: :applause:

[Yael]

11. Well done, Nance

Well done.

:applause:

[BumRushDaShow]

12. K&R

:kick:

[Bjorn Against]

14. Nance, I don't care for Hillary either but I don't think we should downplay the power of sexism...

I can not defend Hillary's statements about McCain and Obama, I can not defend her standing up for corporate lobbyists, I can not defend her lies about Bosnia, I think she deserves to lose. That being said I am not going to deny the very real sexism that exists in our society. Women have been the victims of sexism for literally thousands of years, and the very real sexism that they have faced does not suddenly disappear once one of them becomes a major candidate for President of the United States. Let's face it, many people do look at her differently because she is a woman and that does effect some people's votes. I agree that some of the sexism charges we have heard around here lately are unfair, but I can't blame people who have seen very real examples of sexism their entire lives for seeing sexism sometimes in places that it doesn't exist. Sometimes there are going to be unfair charges of bigotry, but there are so many cases of real bigotry that I think we need to try to understand why these types of charges are being made.

I wish I could say sexism had not had an impact on Hillary's campaign, and I wish I could say that racism has not had any impact on Obama's campaign. I can't say that though, because the impact it has had is very real and no matter who we support I don't think we should deny that both racism and sexism have played major roles in this campaign season. We need to work to fight racism and sexism, and the first step in fighting these things is to recognize them.

[NanceGreggs]

20. I don't ignore the fact ...

... that sexism and racism exist. But I do not buy into the theory that Hillary, who has come this far, is suddenly losing her front-runner position due to being the victim of sexism.

She started this race in the lead - and is now losing support; is that because voters have just started realizing she's a woman?

[Bjorn Against]

31. No, she certainly has overcome a lot of barriers...

I don't think this sexism suddenly appeared, I think it has existed from the beginning. She has certainly overcome many obstacles to get where she is now, and I think it is incredible she made it as far as she did. There are still real obstacles that are faced by all women now though, and there is no reason to believe that Hillary has somehow been able to escape every one of these obstacles. I don't think her drop in the poll numbers is completely due to sexism, does sexism play a role though? Almost certainly. Yes Hillary made some major screwups on her own, but people's perceptions of those screwups are sometimes influence by her sex. Obama faces similar challenges from racism, do you think Obama would have gotten so much flack over the Wright story if Wright had been a white preacher? I don't remember another politician who had his pastor used against him, and there are plenty of angry white pastors out there.

It is easy to look at each screwup that a candidate made and say that their fall is due to those screwups, and in large part that is true but it is much more complicated than that. The way people react to those screwups is based on many social factors, and there is no doubt that sexism is a factor. We don't need to be supporters of Hillary to recognize that.

[DLnyc]

43. Makes sense, in theory. But I have yet to meet or hear of a singe actual

person who opposes Hillary on the basis of her being a woman.

I'm not saying it can't or doesn't exist, just that I haven't seen it directly. Have you?

(And of course, I understand that a person could be against her for sexist reasons without acknowledging that, or even being aware of that, but I haven't gotten that impression of anyone I know, either.)

[Bjorn Against]

54. Sexism has long played a role in people's perceptions...

Most people don't even realize when sexism is effecting our perceptions, because it is so deeply ingrained that it takes hold often without people even realizing it. No, you will not find too many people who will straight up say "I will not vote for a woman", there are a few but most people are not that blatant about their sexist ideas. From the time we are children though we have certain gender roles ingrained in our minds. The little girls play with their dolls which encourage a domestic role, and boys play with their GI Joe toys which teach them to be tough and macho like a soldier. Boys are not supposed to play with dolls, girls are not supposed to be interested in seeing things blow up. Kids are taught their gender roles from a very young age, and these attitudes that are learned in childhood often stick with them their entire lives. Sexism becomes so normal that people don't even think about it, yet it is very prevalent in their daily lives. Most of the sexism in this society is not overt, if you don't look for it you won't see it but when you learn to recognize the very subtle forms of discrimination you will see how prevalent it really is.

[DLnyc]

140. All true and well put. Thank you.

But my question was do you have actual particular people in mind when you are saying people are opposed to Hillary for sexist reasons, or are you just saying that you suspect some people probably are, because, as you say in this post, such thinking is common and often hidden?

For my part, I don't think most of the opposition to Hillary has to do with her being female. I could list a number of things, like DLC, the IWR, the Clinton (Bill and Hillary) tendency to 'triangulate', a discomfort with the 'dynasty' idea, and so forth, that I have heard people express or sensed they felt, but I don't know of any actual people that I know personally who oppose Hillary for reasons of her gender. (But, as I posted elsewhere on this thread, I have to admit I've heard sexist, misogynist terms used toward Hillary on this board--I guess I kind of discount those posters as not being exactly 'people', but I have to look more closely at it.)

[Writer]

163. I have my 30 year-old friend who told my husband that men are meant to lead.

And that men have lost touch of what being a "man" is all about. His wife follows suit, prescribing herself the role of housewife after taking a submission pledge at the altar when they married.

They are religious, and I seriously doubt that either supports Hillary Clinton. As long as fundamentalist religion has a presence anywhere in the world, women will never achieve full equality.

[boston bean]

81. have you heard them call her a bitch, witch, shrill etc.?

[DLnyc]

136. To be fair, I guess I have. Not among people I know personally, although

there is a lot of anger at Hillary in NY for various reasons, I don't hear it expressed in sexist terms at all, though, and honestly don't feel that's where it's coming from.

But, to be fair, I've seen these terms and worse on this board. I usually tune that kind of thread out, assuming those posters to be insane and/or disrupters. But I will give it a closer look henceforth.

By the way, I'm only asking about actual people as opposed to theory. I'm not at all questioning the abusive sexism that exists, nor the pain it causes. Just haven't personally heard or sensed a lot of it toward Hillary from people I know. I will hold my nose and read some offensive posts to try to figure out if it seems real or manufactured on the part of some wacko posters.

[ExPatLeftist]

211. Some sexism behind those terms from some, but mostly linguistics...

I will likely get flamed.

So be it.

Although the English language is one of few that has no gender specification of most nouns, curses of people tend to be gender-specific. In other words, while most people would call a man that they detest, for example, a "dick", women are not often called that. A roughly equivalent term for a female about which one has similar feelings could be "bitch". And the lists of gender-specific words like this go on and on. While many may argue that this is not "right", it is a part of our common language and is a fact. I do not consider calling a man a "dick" to be sexist, and I do not consider that MOST people are being sexist when they call a woman a "bitch". Non-gender-specific personal curses are few and far between in the English language, and they are not nearly as commonly used as the gender-specific ones. If one wants to express disdain towards another in the English language, the most common words to use are gender-specific. And I do not see anything sexist about using our language as it currently exists.

That being said, for the record, I do not use these words about people lightly, and I would likely never use either one against a candidate simply because I chose to support another. NO, I have never called Hillary by any of these names. In fact, I can only recall a single group of political figures that I have called names like this - because they deserve it. And I have at times used gender-specific terms against them as those words are a part of our language. These individuals are almost all male and I meant nothing sexist by the use of gender-specific words.

I think it is in bad taste to use curse words to describe our Democratic candidates. That goes in both directions. But I do not think that one is worse than the other because of some perceived (or contrived) sexism - that is simply a function of our language.

PS In other languages where all nouns (and even adjectives) are gender-specific, I do not often hear of accusations of sexism for choosing a word of a specific gender. I wonder if people are more sensitive to this in English because of the fact that gender specification is, in many other linguistic situations, not a factor.

[Celebration]

82. well this probably isn't politically correct

Hillary's sex, overall, has helped her. Look at all the female voters, and she is winning with female voters big time. Obama's support among black voters is higher than Hillary's support among women--but there aren't nearly as many black voters as there are women voters.

Look how well Obama has to do among male voters just to overcome Hillary's support among women voters. He is at a distinct disadvantage.

In any case, Hillary had this thing won. But she has run a disorganized campaign, and a bewildering one as well. She deserves to lose and it has nothing to do with her sex, as you say. That she is doing as well as she is has to do with her being female.

And that isn't even going into the fact that she is where she is because of her spouse. She is talented in her own right, but would never been in this position without Bill. So she isn't exactly the best example of feminism.

I mean, her campaign has been a mess, a complete mess. I can't imagine what it would be like if she were the Democratic nominee. I would be almost salivating to run against her if I were McCain.

[Ken Burch]

130. Good analysis. but please, promise me this:

Promise you will never again start a post with the words "this probably isn't politically correct".

That whole "politically correct" meme, however it started, is now nothing more than a rhetorical battering ram the RW uses to try and silence all progressives, and also to falsely present bigoted statements as acts of heroic political courage.

I'm not meaning to hammer you here, but we all have to be careful about using the enemy's phraseology, even ironically. It always comes back to bite us in places no one wants to be bitten on.

[Prophet 451]

279. Thank you!

I spend so much time shouting at people for using the "politically correct" BS that I'm sure I've actually developed a nervous tic from it.

[aquart]

252. That's so adorable.

You run with it. It's playing well in Peoria. Oh, wait, that's working class, isn't it? Now WHY do people who work support Hillary? Or don't they?

Well, I'm sure Obama is full of understanding of the ordinary American life. He's read books about it, right?

[Skittles]

37. DAMN STRAIGHT

and it is MORE THAN DISGUSTING seeing a woman doing it :puke:

[Bjorn Against]

46. Let's be fair to Nance though, she has been a great voice for a long time...

I don't think she is seeing the whole picture here, but many don't see the whole picture because sexism is not always overt. It is true that Hillary was way ahead in the polls at one time and her drop has came at the same time as a number of missteps. When people see this happen it is easy for them to dismiss sexism as a factor, but when you look at the big picture and how people react to these missteps that is where the sexism really comes into play. Sexism is often invisible unless people really open their eyes and look for it, we are so used to seeing it in our culture that we don't always notice it when it is there.

We need to discuss the issue and we need to open people's eyes to the realities of sexism, I will not attack a good progressive like Nance. She is one of the greatest voices we have, and I know that she does care deeply about these issues. I may not think she is seeing the whole picture here, and I may disagree with her on this but I know she will listen to me if I express my differences in opinion. Let's show Nance a bit more respect, we can express our disagreements with her without using the puke smiley.

[Skittles]

47. seeing her turn from anti-bush to anti-HRC is DISGUSTING

absolutely DISGUSTING

[NanceGreggs]

53. I am anti-HRC's candidacy, not anti-HRC as a person.

There is a difference.

If I have become anti-Hill its is because of her comments, her bahaviour, and the tenor of her campaign - and last time I checked, I still had a right to my opinion, along with a right to express it.

[boston bean]

60. You are nothing more than a Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews in the eyes of many

Hillary supporters.

And it's well deserved.

When you are blinded by your own support of a candidate and win at all costs and use no critical thinking, except in your very biased view, bash Hillary, you deserve to be in that club.

Now that you've made it, I hope you're happy.

[NanceGreggs]

65. This OP is an ode to Hillary's persistence ...

... in the face of adversity and the obstacles that have been thrown in her political path, and a dismissal of those who are promoting the idea of opting-out of the very political process Hillary has fought for decades to be part of on her own terms.

When it comes to being blinded by your support of a candidate, the fact that you have missed that point entirely is a clear demonstration of your own inability to see what is right before your eyes.

[boston bean]

74. yeah right nance, good try though.

what you attempted to do is belittle her supporters and Hillary herself.

You are saying because Hillary is a fighter, sexism has no effect, which is just ridiculous on its face.

Also,if you were to take an honest look you would be able to notice it here on this board, but you don't. You only continue to deny it.

Is it the only reason, no, but to say it isn't a factor is plain stupidity. All you have to do is look around this board. Hell if you need some examples, let me know. Just since this post I've seen someone say they are tired of menopausal women kvetching, when referring to Hillary supporters.

[housewolf]

96. Question for you...

Are you suggesting that the ONLY reason that individuals don't support Hillary is because they are sexist? And correspondingly, are you saying that the ONLY REASON that individuals don't support Hillary is because they are sexists?

In your model of the world, is sexism the only reason for someone to not support Hillary?

[boston bean]

98. Absolutely not. When someone says sexisim doesn't exist or doesn't play into this,

is wrong, just wrong.

Is it the only reason no. but it is a reason.

[NanceGreggs]

107. Then please give us an example ...

... of where Hillary's numbers have gone down as a direct result of her being female.

Her numbers went down when she lied about Bosnia - was that because she lied, or because she is a woman?

Her numbers when down when she stated that McCain was a more viable candidate than Obama. Was that because she sided with a Republican and dismissed a fellow Democrat - or because she is a woman?

Her numbers went down when it became public knowledge that she was stiffing small business operators, and had allowed her employees' health coverage lapse due to non-payment of their insurance premiums. Was that because she was seen as being irresponsible - or because she is a woman?

Her numbers went down when she argued that FL and MI votes should be counted after agreeing that they wouldn't be counted. Was that because she had exposed herself as advocating changing the rules to her own benefit, and reneging on her previous pledge - or because she is a woman?

[boston bean]

113. you honestly don't see the sexism in the media, the sexism on DU,

It's not something that is wholly measured. It is something that just is.

Can you say someone isn't voting for Hillary because she's a woman, can you say someone isn't voting for Barack because he's black and be 100% positive. They both are pervasive and I shouldn't have to explain this to you.

[NanceGreggs]

117. Of course there are people ...

... supporting Hill because she's a woman, and supporting Barack because he's black.

None of which has a single thing to do with my OP.

[boston bean]

168. you refuse to see. you have made my point over and over again.

You do not believe that sexism exists in this race.

Anything else you might have to say fails because of this one ignorance.

[Yurovsky]

202. Classic "I'm right, you're wrong, end of discussion" logic ...

good grief.

More than half of the voters in the primaries have been women. Must be all those self-loathing Democratic women that did HRC in.

Don't misunderstand, I fully acknowledge that sexism still exists. No serious person could argue that. But that's not the reason why HRC is losing to Senator Obama. She had EVERY advantage (name recognition, money, organization, and a gender shared by a majority of the primary voters) yet still finished in 2nd place. If she had been defeated by a white male, I might have given a bit more consideration to your argument, but seeing as how Senator Obama is NOT a white male, well, I have a hard time buying the notion that sexism trumped racism in the primary season. Certainly both played a role, but I doubt either were decisive.

In the general ection, it's a different story. Sexism and racism are far more widespread outside of the party, so the impact, IMO, would be far more critical in determining the outcome. JMO, mind you.

[boston bean]

203. I never said sexism was the only reason. It's people trying to make it an all or

nothing scenario, that belittle the truth of sexism.

[bettyellen]

297. thank you for calling them on this bullshit-

the all or nothing thing is the bully's way of BSing those who have legitimate gripes.
if the OP actual;ly belives this crap, i'd be shocked.

[Heathen57]

240. Sounds to me like you are seeing

sexism where none really exists. You want it, have to have it in this instance just to justify the gaffs that Clinton has made that has caused her campaign to suffer.

Sure, sexism exists and happens often. That doesn't mean that you should read sexism into a post where none exists.

You remind me of Andrea Dworkin. In order to prove that Playboy and other magazines were printing child porn, she counted every panel of every cartoon that was remotely portraying a 'child' (a woman with her hair in pigtails or a braid for example)

You should quit using sexism as an excuse for your candidate losing. It just makes you look fanatical and hurts those cases where sexism is real.

[bettyellen]

177. LOL, yes please prove a ngative... the OP is a fucking joke.

no one is this naive.

[hisownpetard]

220. Nailed it!

:thumbsup:

[DWilliamsamh]

184. I think you might be over stating things just a bit.....

I see no reference in Ms. Greggs' OP to anything like a denial that sexism exists. Nor is there a denial that sexism has not played some negative role in Senator Clinton's life and even in this campaign. As a matter of fact I believe Ms. Greggs sited several examples of sexism that any reasonable person should KNOW that Senator Clinton has had to fight through. Further Ms. Greggs gives her presumptive credit for having won those battles through tenacity and determination.

It is hard to take your criticism seriously when you are clearly responding to your own thoughts and preconceived notions of the writer's work, rather than the work itself.

[lilyannerose]

178. Good Try

I can no longer support HRC because I'm fed up with lies from the Oval Office. HRC has told more than one or two fibs. It's an issue of trust and I don't trust HRC any longer. I'm tired of officials who think that We the People are not worthy of being treated as adults and will not deal with us on that level. If she's depending on lies during her campaign what will we get from the Oval Office? Her campaign has been a disaster and based on her campaign mistakes you can't convince me that she'll be ready on Day One. HRC is responsibile for her own self destruction and needs to take responsibility for it.:nopity:

[comradebillyboy]

141. Nance you have listed many of the reasons I like Hillary

Nance, you have highlighted many of the reasons I find Hillary to be admirable and tough as nails and I support her because of them. If Obama is the nominee, and it looks like he will be, I'll vote for him. If he wins it will be due in large part to the fact that Hillary gave him a really tough fight in the primaries. And for those who think that she has been too nasty to the saintly Barak, just wait till the repub slime machine gets into gear and you'll see nasty.

I will say that Obama is an infinitely better candidate and politician than Gore, Kerry or Edwards. He holds up very well under pressure. I don't expect to see him wind surfing at Martha's Vineyard, while being swift-boated by the pukes, like the pathetic and hapless John Kerry. But he should probably gag his wife till after the election, and maybe convert to Catholicism.

[Danger Mouse]

70. Nance's posts in regard to Hillary have never been out of line..

so you guys are basically throwing her under the bus because SHE DISAGREES WITH YOU.
Classy.

[rodeodance]

122. Don't ASSume we are throwing her under the bus just because some disagree. How stupid!!

[Cheap_Trick]

104. love your sig

you cry about sexism, yet use a sig line "bitches get stuff done". so it's okay if YOU refer to women as bitches.....

[boston bean]

105. it's a form of empowerment. nt

[SwampG8r]

198. irony anyone?

When you are blinded by your own support of a candidate and win at all costs and use no critical thinking, except in your very biased view, ..., you deserve to be in that club.
hello pot here kettle please pick up

[Seabiscuit]

218. I'm not a "Hillary supporter", but I am saddened that even someone I used to

admire for her keen perception seems to have lost her vision once her eyes became glazed over with Obamamania.

She's not the only one. Numerous people on DU I used to have the utmost respect for, many of whom I'd enjoyed conversations and PMs with have changed during this primary season. I've never seen a political candidate do that to people before. It's scary, because many seem to have become pod people. The memes of the Obama campaign and its supporters seem to be right out of Karl Rove's playbook, and it's disappointing and even appalling at times to see how so many erstwhile progressives are falling for it.

The really sad thing about it to me is that I can't imagine how DU will ever be the same again. It used to be a very enjoyable and informative website.

[aquart]

253. How very reasonable.

I am completely convinced that when a woman who is GOOD ENOUGH comes along, you will support her.

Has she been born yet?

[pollo poco]

277. Dear Nance

I agree with you, and have also formed my opinion based on Hillary's comments, behavior and the tenor of her campaign. You could add "DLC" and "corporatist" to my original list of reasons to support another candidate in the primaries.

But, it is possible to hold all of the following opinions:

1. my choice is not Hillary

2. there are quite a few legitimate objections to her as a candidate

3. sexism is widespread and harmful to women

4. many of Hillary's detractors cross the line and make sexist attacks

5. this clouds the issue by taking the discussion away from legitimate objections to her as a candidate

6. the sheer number of gender based attacks, adding nothing of substance to the debate, shows that sexism is endemic in today's America

so

7. how could it fail to be an issue?

I really don't think supporting or not supporting Hillary is the real issue on the table when it comes to sexism. After the election, the problem of whether to support Hillary will go away. Even if she is elected and serves two terms, we will eventually be rid of Hillary.

The sexism, however, will still be there. It is one of those things about America that still needs "perfecting".

[Danger Mouse]

71. she's not allowed to have her own opinions? she has to support HRC just because she's female?

DISGUSTING. absolutely DISGUSTING.

[boston bean]

76. No, are you saying I don't have a right to my opinion because I'm a Hillary supporting woman. nt

[Danger Mouse]

80. not at all. i'm just not understanding why you feel that way.

i haven't felt that nance's posts have been sexist, really...
so help me understand your logic in saying that.

[boston bean]

84. I am saying Nance is being biased in favor of Obama.

Which I suppose she has a right to do. But I did expect more from her. I have always enjoyed her posts, found them especially funny and intriguing and thought provoking, but lately they are just Hillary bashing posts.

She can write what she wants, but if she puts it out there, and I disagree, I have just as much right as she does to be heard.

[Danger Mouse]

87. i never said you didn't have a right to be heard...

thanks for explaining your PoV.
are you saying you don't like her bias, or that you don't like that she is biased against clinton?
would it bother you if all she ever did was post, say, anti-obama threads?

[boston bean]

90. No, I could care less that she supports O, or if she wrote glowing articles about him

24/7.

But when she decides to write a post that belittles and does not recognize the truth of some of the matter, she should be called on it.

[Danger Mouse]

91. i guess i interpret it differently from you...

fair enough.
i'll agree to disagree with you.

[housewolf]

99. You know, it seems to me that Nance is STRONGLY standing up for Hillary

She's giving her all sorts of credit for strength and perseverance. Hillary's just not Nance's first choice for president.

What's so terrible about that?

[boston bean]

109. I'm sure she's never read someone on DU saying they will never vote for Hillary. nt

[amb123]

213. Why don't you call Nancie a "self-loathing woman" while you're at it!

PATHETIC!

[JohnnyLib2]

68. Fair enough.

It's a long, hard struggle.

[Asgaya Dihi]

166. Just a thought

I don't disagree with you in the slightest that sexism is real, same with racism, but I am concerned with how fast some here are to point fingers and try to identify it. Given that drug war and prison reform is more my area I'll draw my example with racism, it's not the same obviously but I think there might be parallels.

Everyone runs into jerks or hears/sees things they don't like, things which might bother them on some level. For me being white it's often left me pissed, confused or any number of other things given that I couldn't see a good reason for it. If I had been black or another minority though, then would I have just assumed the reason? I've seen it happen and given that I wouldn't have anything else rational to blame it on I'd suspect that in some cases I would have. Real racism on the other hand is easy to find, in our justice system, prisons, schools, and a number of other places where we've decided it's ok to let them live for decades in a way we wouldn't want to live ourselves.

That doesn't make all accusations wrong, there are racist jerks out there. And sexist ones. Some of them though are just jerks with no further qualifier needed, and some aren't even that. Old friends and I used to greet each other with insults and we loved each other, couldn't have been anything less insulting to it in context. To an outsider maybe, but to us it was love and we weren't talking to them. Been decades since I was a kid so that's long past but we didn't mean a thing by it and would have been surprised if anyone thought we did. Or maybe amused, might have played it up just to screw with them for being uptight with us.

I'd suspect that we're seeing a bit of both in the campaign and that the constant refrain of sexism gets to be a boy who cried wolf type of situation, people just stop caring and poke fun at the complainers instead. It's not that it isn't real or that it doesn't happen, but that the accusation loses power quickly when used too freely and in cases where maybe it didn't happen. In this campaign I believe it has been used too freely and we're seeing some backlash.

[Frisbee]

278. But I think sometimes...

We sometimes look so hard for something we expect to see, that we find it when it doesn't exist (or exist to the degree we expect). I am sure sexism is playing a role, but I do think it is a very minor role compared to the other issues. Obviously that doesn't make it acceptable, but I don't believe that is is a significant factor in how the campaigns are playing out. BTW, I am NOT trying to call you out or get "something started". I think the way you have expressed your opinion, and perhaps more importantly, stood by Nancy, even though you disagree with her when others have attacked her is worthy of much respect. I just have a minor disagreement on this one issue.

[TLM]

165. How very sexist....

To attack a strong woman for expressing her opinion like that.

[FightingIrish]

15. Excellent, as usual

I'd love to see a woman president, but it would be better for all of us if we at least started with an honest woman.

Kicked and already recommended

[Writer]

16. NanceGreggs, when it came down to two, the sexist rhetoric became rampant.

Chris Matthews? You're ignoring him. David Schuster? You're ignoring that, too. "Iron My Shirt!" I suppose that's merely a coincidence. The Facebook page "Hillary Clinton, Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich"? I guess they're just having a bad year. You're ignoring what is inconvenient in order to make a political point.

NanceGreggs, you're wrong.

[NanceGreggs]

28. This is part-and-parcel of the recent outrage ...

... that Hill has been called a "whore", which, as some here would have it, is negatively impacting Hill's campaign.

Can you point out a single former Hill supporter who has changed their mind about her because she's been called names? Did Randi Rhodes' comments lead to thousands of Hillary supporters switching their allegiance to Obama?

My premise stands: The candidate herself has weathered such storms throughout her life, and her political career. She isn't where she is today because she walked away from the fight - but because she met it, head-on.

[Writer]

44. NanceGreggs, to say that these words don't hurt ignores a much larger problem.

She's weathered many storms, but the fact that she must weather storms to stand on the same playing field with her male counterparts is, by itself, the problem. Every ill word spoken of her gender only solidifies the grotesque belief that she not only is (as many feel) not worthy of the presidency, but because she also is a "whore," a woman more worthy of ironing shirts and making sandwiches than being the president, and only there because of her husband's philandery.

It's a way to further piss on a woman who has yet again found herself thrown to the dirt. A woman who continues to get up again and again, only to find herself thrown down into the dirt, and yet she still continues to rise. It's not about votes but about what we're saying about the woman trying to win those votes. It's sexism and it is very real.

[NanceGreggs]

57. So is racism very real ...

... along with anti-Semitism, anti-homosexuality, prejudice based on religious beliefs, handicaps, income bracket, ethnicity, home-schooling v public education, membership in certain clubs, sororities, fraternities, being reared in an inner-city neighbourhood v a farming community - the list is endless.

So let me ask you this, in all sincerity: Can you point me to a single instance where Hillary has fallen behind Obama in votes or delegates as a direct result of her gender, to the exclusion of every other factor or consideration?

[Bjorn Against]

78. But how can we exclude every other factor or consideration?

Please understand Nance, the argument that is being made (at least by me) is not that Hillary is losing solely because she is a woman. I believe a woman could win the Presidency in today's society, but there is no doubt that women do face additional hurdles as a result of thousands of years of sexism. Are there some votes lost solely because she is a woman? Sure there are some, but most cases are much more complicated than votes being cast solely on the basis of her sex. People react to her differently because she is a woman, and while ultimately sexism may not be the main factor that is moving people away from her that does not mean that sexism does not play a major role in shaping people's attitudes.

I know you have good reasons for opposing Hillary Nance, and I know that your reasons are not based on sexist attitudes in any way shape or form. I oppose Hillary's candidacy as well and I agree with most of the criticisms you have of her. I do believe that sexism has played a role in this campaign though, and if you don't see it I ask you to please look a little more closely and think about the various ways in which gender roles exist in our society. Don't just think about the blatant sexism, but think about all the really subtle ways in which we see sexism in our society. Think about the toys kids play with, think about the ways in which people of different genders dress, think about the stereotypical jobs for men and women, look at the ways you have been treated differently because you were a woman. You are not just looking at people who were blatantly sexist towards you though, you are looking at all the different ways society is structured to promote certain gender roles. Once you do this I think you will understand the ways in which sexism has played a role in this campaign.

[NanceGreggs]

101. I have no doubt that sexism ...

... plays a role in political thinking - along with racism, and other "isms" that exist in our society.

However, my OP is much narrower than that. I am not denying the existence of sexism, but pointing out the fact that a small (but VERY vocal) group of Hillary supporters here have advocated leaving the party, and/or not voting at all in November should Hill not be the nominee, as some sort of positive action against sexism.

There is nothing positive or productive about crying "sexism" every time Hillary's numbers go down, when it is obvious that her loss of support is due to other factors that have nothing to do with her gender.

[Bjorn Against]

119. There have been some Hillary supporters that have frustrated me as well...

There are a lot of rough feelings around DU right now, and there are people from both camps who have said some very nasty things. There are some things that have bothered me about the cries of sexism, namely that I have heard a few people say that sexism is a much bigger problem than racism. I don't think we should be taking sides on which is the bigger problem, because they are both huge problems and to say one is a bigger issue than the other is just wrong.

My point is that some of the charges of sexism did go too far, but despite that fact we should not dismiss the impact that sexism has had on Hillary's campaign. I don't think it is so obvious that her loss of support is due to other factors that have nothing to do with her gender, because gender plays such a big role in people's perceptions that I don't know that you can truly separate it from any issue in the campaign. Again, I don't think gender is the primary reason is Hillary is losing, but I do think people's attitudes on gender roles has had an impact on nearly every aspect of her campaign. Sexism is alive and well, but it is not always obvious unless you really look closely for it and think about all the social factors that exist.

[housewolf]

102. Not to mention obesity-bias....

just sayin'



:shrug:

[Bluenorthwest]

110. Hey Nance

Well sexism is the cornerstone of homophobia, and you would not know it if it bite you on your pretentious butt. I wonder, as an undecided Democrat who is very suspect of your candidates attitudes toward GLBT people, I wonder if you understand your own words. I don't think you do.
Anti-homosexuality? So, as an Obama supporter you are also of the opinion that it is the sexual acts and not the persons that are subject to this judgemental dogma? Are you really claiming that among the meaningless prejudices that do not affect you, those who hold prejudice against gay humans actually just 'hate the sin' and not the sinner? They are anti-homosexuality, but in your mind and lexicon, not anti-gay, anti-transgendered? You see it as less than real, less than bigotry, less than that which may harm you or your interests. It is not against the people, but the practice, right?
The sexism and homophobia around Obama and his supporters, even many who think they are above such things, is the prime reason I am not supporting him. I really don't like what I see out of many Democrats, and I am a lifelong, family Democrat. You stand by and act as if open gay bashing at officical Democratic events is a non issue, you welcome the Fundies to attack and sing along with Donnie, just like Bush. That which may harm me or mine is of no meaning to you, and so you don't even know how you sound. I'd ask you to leave if this were my home. If you were ever open minded, you have shut it down to serve the new 700 Club branch of the Party or something.
Anti-homosexuality. Nice.

[NanceGreggs]

131. Where you ever got the ideas you are ...

... attributing to me, via what I've said here or elsewhere, I will never know.

Look through all of my previous posts, and all of my journal entries.

What you will find is my unwavering position when it comes to homosexuality: It is as normal and natural as heterosexuality. I do not see a difference between the two - never have, never will.

I do not perceive love between people of the same sex any differently than I see love between people of opposite sexes. I do not see "sin" in the act of loving, the physical demonstration of that love, nor the desire of same-sex or opposite-sex couples to be recognized as equals, socially and legally, in their commitment to each other.

I am truly angered and appalled that you would accuse me of supporting the kind of ignorance and hared I have been adamantly against, and very vocally so, here and elsewhere.

I understand that people here - as is their right - may disagree with my positions and opinions from time to time. And as is my normal course, I accept criticism for my words when anyone feels they are warranted.

However, to blatantly state that my position on something is the exact opposite of what I have continually maintained is truly despicable.

[Bluenorthwest]

226. Perhaps an adjustment for the times is due,

in terms of your choice of words. I am sure you are a strong allie. I am also sure you put great value on language and words. I also think you realize that context changes the meanings of words, and that you are committed enough to the good fight to consider delving into some nuances and terms of art of which you are not fully aware.

Humbley I offer that there is a large and important difference between describing this prejudice as 'anti-homosexuality' and as bigotry against GLBT people. It is a difference the bigots themselves use as part of their arsenal of attack modes. The very reason they chose such tactics is that to many people the meaning is invisible. But they characterize themselves as hating 'homosexuality' but not hating 'homosexuals' and they do so for obvious reasons, obvious to both me and to them at least. I was raised among these people, I am a native speaker. A world of sorrow can exist in the choice of one word over another, or a world of liberation.

Now I will say that yes, I am being hyper sensitive in taking you to task instead of giving you the benefit of the doubt, but it is not without cause and it is not my actions that call for such picking of nits. I hope I can say this without any faults on my part, but here goes. Senator Obama has as part of his vision something that could be wonderful, if done with care, or if done poorly could be the end of many hopes and dreams. He among all Democrats has brought the anti-gay people into the discourse, and he claims good intentions, and I am still unsure of those intentions. His idea of 'a place at the table' for the Fundy haters is risky, and yet I think he might be able to do such a thing. He, and we, will fail if we are not fully aware of the language and underpinning philospy coming from the side I call the oppostion. If such bridge building is to occur, it must be done with care, and awareness, or it is foolhardy to even try. So I want those who don't agree with the bigots to learn how to make that disagrement clear, not to me but to the bigots. Our side needs to have terms understood in common, and also need to understand the terms the bigots have in common.

Pulling the anti-gay Funies into our Party without proper preperation is like going into Iraq with no plan. It is a huge and bold undertaking, and those who are proposing it need to show they have the skills to pull it off. Learn the lingo of the Evangelicals, and avoid much confusion, don't bother and the Fundies will win. And it is not just homosexuality they are against, it is also homosexuals. See? The are also against choice, sex education, hiv awareness, the teaching of science. They have been opposed by our side for many good reasons. Invite them in without learning the language and all of those issues are put at risk.

Those who come from non Fundy Christianist cultures will not be atuned to this verbiage, but that does not mean it is not there. It does not mean they have to remain unaware of the language to the point they begin to speak in the very terms that are used to bind. If you are going to play with fire for political advantage, at least take the care to learn about the nature of fire.

Bigots hate GLBT people, directly. It is not that they simply don't approve of a form of sexuality. They discriminate against individual Americans in housing and employment, in many places with the full backing of the law. The law made of words. Specific words with specific meanings.

The Fundies used to be only on the GOP side, and much assumption of alliance could be made. Now some have welcomed them to our table. And that means we can not afford to be unaware of the wolves among us. Please consider that some relearning may be needed for those who do not really know the Evangelical world, if we are expected to include them without doing harm to our own. Including them was not my idea at all, it was Obama's. But if it must be done, it must be done with exacting language.

So at least know that a difference is heard by many on both sides of this discussion between being 'anti-homosexuaity' and being 'bigoted against gay people'. They describe that difference as 'loving the sinner, hating the sin'. See how that works? Standing with the evangelicals to grab some votes does put one on the watch list. Speaking in terms of art prefered by the evangelicals will add to that suspicion. Knowing the terms in the first place can help. Doing something difficult is as Bush says, hard work. It may mean we need to speak with care in ways we have not even known about before. You are not an evangelical, and I am sure you don't wish to sound like one when speaking to or about gay and trans people. This former evangelical gay man is hipping you to some poetical power ploys used by the nuts newly invited to our table, by your candidate.

I'm sorry I was so harsh at first. The stakes are very much higher than the average non GLBT person realizes and the time for pussyfooting is well past. The laws made under Obama, with the Fundies along I guess, will determine much of my financial life and my legacy to my family when I die, they will determine if we will have legal equlity or not. Stepping on toes is not something I am much worried about, admittedly. I should think before I speak. In fact Nance, I am begining to think that speaking to the Democratic Party as defined by Obama may be a flat out waste of time. I feel we have already been thrown under the bus. Goldwater warned the GOP about going religious, and he was right, but hey, maybe it will be a tonic for our Party.

"Cautious, careful people, always casting about to preserve their reputation or social standing never can bring about reform. Those who are really in earnest are willing to be anything or nothing in the world's estimation, and publicly and privately, in season and out, avow their sympathies with despised ideas, and bear the consequences." -- Susan B. Anthony

[JBShakes]

200. And, what, pray tell...

do you base your "suspicions" on? Was it Obama's reluctance to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome? Was it the fact that Hillary gave an exclusive interview to the Philadelphia Gay News last week, while Obama and McCain chose not to? Are you, perhaps willfully ignoring the fact that Trinity United Church (the one you're happy to use when Senator Obama's associations with it paint Senator Obama in a negative light) has WHITE, FEMALE clergy in positions of prominence, and like all United Church of Christ parishes, openly supports gay clergy AND gay marriage? Is that what these "suspicions" are based on? Just curious...because otherwise your post seems like more "if it doesn't help Hillary, ignore the hell out of it and/or dismiss it" thinking that seems so prevalent from the folks supporting Senator Clinton.

[Recursion]

63. Err... she's one of the most elite and privileged people in the country

Seriously, I'm having difficulty feeling sympathy for how "horribly" she has allegedly been treated when politicians with actual accomplishments and experience like Richardson, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, and Kucinich were completely shut out.

She's been treated very, very well by the media and by society, and I don't think she has much room to complain.

[aquart]

284. Ah. If you can't prove it cost a vote, whore-calling is fine.

Can I now call Obama, "boy"? After all, his numbers are great and he's clearly going to be the candidate, isn't he? And president? So if it doesn't affect the vote...

[democrank]

19. What a rude awakening this campaign has been for me.

I fought for women`s rights decades ago when married women couldn`t get a bank loan without their husband`s okay. I remember when police departments and fire departments were all male and when most women in business worked as a secretary. Obviously we HAVE come a long way, in spite of the unfounded, divisive, faux-sexism cries from many Hillary supporters.

It`s absolutely ludicrous for Clinton supporters to claim sexism while overlooking the fact that Clinton is as close to being our nomination for president as any other woman in our history. How did she get this far? Obviously not all barricades were insurmountable. To make matters worse, these same Clinton supporters then began a campaign pitting gender against race....actually holding a public contest to prove Hillary has is SOOOO much rougher than any African-American. This would be laughable if it wasn`t so sad.

[MagickMuffin]

21. Well, I am puzzled by the so called Hillary Feminist supporters who say they won't vote in Nov.

if she isn't the nominee:shrug:

I guess they are so short sighted that they don't consider the Supreme Court something they should be concerned about or they are just too plain irrational in their pursuit of a woman president that our rights could be overturned by a McCain presidency.

Are they that selfish?.?.?

Do they even realize that we already have several corporate judges sitting on the Supreme Court, that they could be doing the feminist movement more harm by their illogical reasoning?.?.?

Do they not realize that this election doesn't mean diddly squat when it comes to the Supreme Court?.?.?

Do they realize that their children's future will be decided by who gets to replace the out going Supreme Court Judges?.?.?

Again, ARE they really that selfish?.?.?

As a 50 yo white woman, I will vote for who ever wins the nomination. I just hope it is Barack Obama.

[Dr.Phool]

26. I'm really looking forward to Chief Justice John Yoo.

And Associate Justice Ann Coulter.

[Dr.Phool]

22. My sentiments exactly.

I got yelled at last summer, and was accused of being a sexist.

My wife and I were having dinner with another couple. We had dinner with this couple several times, and I introduced her to the county DEC. A campaign I was working even hired her to do some graphics work.

During dinner she asked me if I was excited about Hillary running. I said No, gave her a long list of reasons why I didn't support her, said that I was holding out for Gore, but would probably go with Edwards. Boy, did she erupt, calling me a blatant sexist and more. We haven't spoken since. I do see her soon to be ex-husband on occasion.

Another friend, running for office called me last week for her phone number to have some work done. I just said, "We don't use her anymore".

[tammywammy]

24. Another excellet post Nancy!

Recommended.

[isuba]

25. Thank You.

So well put. Respectfully done and captures the essence of what a lot of us are feeling.

[Tresalisa]

27. Kicking another most excellent post!

I, too, will vote for the nominee. It looks like it will be Obama, but if it is Hillary, I'll vote for her.

One day we're all going to look back upon the Clinton and Obama campaigns for their important place in our history, and hopefully (!!) realize that much of what supporters of both candidates went back and forth about with each other really did not matter in the long run.

:kick:

[Willo]

29. Oooh oooh oooh, Nance used the %@#* word! K&R

I also like your writings. You're good!

[NanceGreggs]

66. I figured that using the %@#* word ...

... would be more politically correct than using the &*$@% word, which tends to anger more people than not.

(Thanks, WIllo!)

[HCE SuiGeneris]

30. In case it wasn't understood

Damn, you write well!

[Berry Cool]

32. We will never be true feminists until we are willing to choose

regardless of gender--one way or the other. Just as we will never be free of racism until we are willing to choose regardless of race.

To be true feminists, we must be willing not only to vote for a woman--ANY woman--but to vote for the RIGHT woman, just as we would for the right man--and not feel obligated to vote for the woman simply because she is a woman.

K&R

[NanceGreggs]

33. Precisely.

If I vote for a woman based solely on the fact of her gender and to the exclusion of all else, I am a sexist - plain and simple.

[housewolf]

106. I agree with you

I'd say that too if you hadn't already beat me to it!

[Window]

34. K/R. Thanks Nance...you never fail to hit it out of the park.

:thumbsup:

:kick:

[madamesilverspurs]

35. To be fair, Nance, I think we should start a list

of all the jobs we've gotten just because we're women. I'll start:






Gimme a minute.




I'm still thinking.





On second thought, do you want to go first?

[Skittles]

36. think what you want

in 51 years I have never EVER seen such blatant hatred displayed towards ANY candidate - and that includes BUSH.

[boston bean]

38. It's useless to point it out. They will try to win at any cost, sell out their values to win.

It reminds me of Bush supporters.

[hisownpetard]

221. "...try to win at any cost, sell out their values to win." Funny you should mention that!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5415756&mesg_id=5415756

[otohara]

39. Anger Maybe, But Hatred Is Exaggeration

there's a difference, but keep saying hate if it makes you feel better and justified.

[Skittles]

48. another one who JUST DOESN'T GET IT

I've never even been a fan of HRC and what I have seen done to her MAKES ME SICK.

[guyanakoolaid]

58. However, in those 51 years have you ever seen a candidate espouse support for the opposition party

over their own party rival? Ever? Once? Imagine if McCain said "I think Obama could do a better job on national defense than Huckabee". You can't imagine it, can you? Neither could I before Hillary did it. It crossed such a line that the inter-party anger is completely justified.

[redqueen]

230. Apparently there are some around here who are committed to not seeing

the things she's done as anything but just minor fluff. It apparently doesn't bother them at all.

Which is fucking scary, considering that that not only includes her parroting the "Iraq is connected to Al Qaeda" lie in her IWR speech, but also - far more tellingly - backing up the White House's lies about Iraq, 10 months after the war started.

*sigh*

[PoliticalAmazon]

307. I think hate of Hillary and Bush is about the same. Both earned it, too. n/t

[walldude]

40. It's a matter of their perspective... they see and hear what

they want to see and hear. The other day I was in a thread where I said Randi's comments were hers to make but I thought they were over the top. The OP then proceeded to tell me about all the jerks supporting Obama and how none of them, not a single one disagreed with Randi's statement.

Never mind the OP was responding to "one". I then pointed out a few other Obama supporters in the same thread that the OP started that also said Randi went too far. The OP couldn't find one Obama supporter who thought Randi went too far, yet there were 3 in the OP's own thread. Happens all the time, they find one or two trolls, they hold them up as examples of all Obama supporters then climb on their high horse and say "they will do anything to win", while claiming that Hillary is a (and I saw this today) "a really nice person who has run a decent respectable campaign" and Obama is vile scum who will do anything to win.

[Auntie Bush]

41. Sorry Nance,

"One can only wonder where Hillary would be today had she adopted the attitude that many of her supporters here are actively advocating: quit and go home, refuse to stand your ground as an equal participant in the voting process, slink off like a hard-done-by female as a means of proving you’re not exactly that."

I haven't noticed any Hillary supporters suggesting she slink off and go home and not stand her ground. Hillary supporters want her STAY and FIGHT...in spite of all the misogynist comments by the media and many posters on this forum.

If people here don't want to vote for Obama...it has nothing to do with Hillary or probably even Obama. It's because of the hatred that is developing between the parties because of the unfair, bias, slime being spread about Hillary on this forum, the biased media and by the left wing internet sites like Kos and the Huffington Post...to name just a few.

I consider you a fair person...but you have misjudged Hillary supporters, their thinking and their feelings. I didn't even recognize your description of "us" on our feelings or motives in your earlier paragraphs. You really need to sit down and have a long discussion with someone on our side who can explain how we feel...someone better skilled at narrative and typing than I. I am certainly at a disadvantage when it comes to explaining or arguing with you. I feel like George Bush trying to give a better speech than Obama...without a telepromter. lol Anyway...We want Hillary to stay in and fight and we resent people telling her to get out and accuse her of being in this primary for pure evil selfish reasons etc. etc.etc.

I hope I gave you a glimpse of how I/we feel. AB

[emilyg]

52. I wish I could rec. your post.

[Auntie Bush]

56. Thanks!

Too bad I'm on ignore by so many people.

[NanceGreggs]

62. I totally understand how you feel ...

But this OP was not aimed at the idea of Hill staying in the race. It was aimed at her so-called supporters who have been advocating not voting in the GE unless Hillary is the nominee - while, at the same time, insisting that if she is not the nominee, it is due to sexism and nothing else.

I may not be a Hillary supporter, but that doesn't change the fact that her many political successes have been the result of not walking away from the system when you disagree with it - but bucking the system and proving your rightful place within its confines through accomplishment rather than slamming the door in its face out of sheer frustration.

I am repeatedly told that Hillary is still in this race because she's not a quitter - which begs the question as to why so many of her supporters here are advocating quitting the party, and opting out of the voting process, if she is not the ultimate nominee.

[Auntie Bush]

88. I still disagree because I believe your basic premise is a false premise..

"It was aimed at her so-called supporters who have been advocating not voting in the GE unless Hillary is the nominee - while, at the same time, insisting that if she is not the nominee, it is due to sexism and nothing else."

It's too hard to answer with my two finger typing. But I'll give it a brief try. Very few Hillary supporters are not threatening to not vote in the GE because of the Misogamy aimed at Hillary. If they don't vote it is purely due to the nasty campaign against Hillary. "if she is not the nominee, it is due to sexism and nothing else." We/I don't think misogamy is WHY she won't win...that is a false premise. Now I give up!

[Celebration]

93. Supporters of both sides get very vehement

Blaming a candidate for the behaviour of supporters, especially on a message board, just isn't very logical or smart. Sorry, I don't understand this.

Find things about the candidate himself/herself that you don't like. As an example, I was really turned off when Hillary pointed to herself and McCain having experience to be president. That was not her supporters talking, but her.

So, if you are not going to like one of the candidates, at least find something that the candidate does or says that you don't like, not some preacher or someone who supports the candidate.

[Auntie Bush]

108. He pretends to run a positive campaign when he does nothing to stop

his supporter's nasty habits. I firmly believe he encourages it and starts many of the conflicts himself. Like accusing the Clintons of being racists. He stands up there and gives a sermon about how he runs a positive campaign and then goes on to accuse the Clintons of many false lies. That's is what I don't like about Obama...but I don't mention them because I don't like to say negative things about one of our candidates...in spite of what the Obamites say about the Clintons. How can I tell you why I don't like Obama without being just like the people I criticize...that's hypocritical.

[Celebration]

180. I think you are projecting..............

I see no evidence of him calling the Clintons racists. I really objected to Bill's trying to bring up Jesse Jackson in South Carolina, though, as if to compare Obama to him. That doesn't make Bill a racist, because he is not, but it did seem like race baiting to me. But it was Bill, not Hillary.

[housewolf]

111. Hmmm.. what I read was Hillary's supporters "slinking off

quitting and going home, etc." as related to those suupporters of Hillary who claim that they won't vote for the Obama if he's the nominee, they're rather sit this one out or vote for McCain...

I didn't read those words as pertaining to Hillary herself.

[rodeodance]

120. Thanks, I ,too wish I could REC your post.

[L0oniX]

42. The Force is strong with you Nance.

[me b zola]

45. K&R

[McCamy Taylor]

49. Mind if I point out the illogic in this? You are saying that there can be no sexism because Hillary

is within 100 and some odd points of Barack Obama.

Yes, that is what you are saying. You use some very nicely turned words to make your point sound less improbable, but that is still your thesis.

It does not matter a whit that Hillary managed – apparently despite this never-ending, oh-so-obvious sexism – to come within a hair’s breadth of the nomination. Nor does it matter that when a field of more-than-capable candidates was narrowed down to two, she, the only woman in the field, was one of the two left standing.

When you place that bit of rhetoric in the third paragraph of your post, you make it central to your argument. You say, in effect It matters a lot that this woman was one of the last two candidates standing in the race. As if this specific fact can be used to formulate a generalization about all women and their position within modern American society.

Actually, it does not matter that the ex-wife of a former president is in a close race to become the Democratic nominee. That does not prove a thing about the status of women in the United States. In countries all across the world in which women live in second class status, wives and daughters of revered politicians are elected to political office to serve as proxies. In ancient times, when women were the chattel of their husbands, queens could rule and female members of royal families had powers usually afforded only to men. That was because class trumped sexual politics, and royalty---divine mandate---is the highest class of all.

There is another way to prove that gender is an issue. When considering a case where a single example has been stretched to create an overly broad generalization---in this case, Hillary's close second place proves that there is no sexism standing in her way--it sometimes helps to consider another, similar example. Were Hillary the brother of a beloved ex-president who had pursued a successful political career on his own---say Bobby Kennedy---or even the son of a not so beloved ex-president with a checkered history and very little pertinent experience---George W. Bush---Hillary would have waltzed into the nomination, the way that Bobby Kennedy was on his way to the 1968 nomination when he was assassinated and the way that good for nothing George W. Bush was nominated by the GOP in 2000. And the Party would be cheering about it.

Why was Teddy Kennedy considered worthy so many times and Hillary is not? Hillary never drove anyone off a bridge and... You know the story.

You then go on to state your opinion about why Hillary has lost ground to Obama.

It is due to a myriad of factors, from contradictory statements re Michigan and Florida, to holding out McCain as a more viable candidate than a fellow Democrat, to attempting to move the goalposts every time she falls behind, to the Bosnia lie that caused serious questioning of her credibility on any number of issues.

You will note that none of the above have anything to do with her gender.

Actually, I will note that all of those things happened after Hillary fell behind Obama, so that they can not represent cause and effect.

I will also note you have not bothered to cite any factors that are related to gender, not because they do not exist. This is also a rhetorical trick. I will now list some factors related to gender which have probably affected Hillary's campaign, in no particular order.

1. The Chris Matthews problem as documented by Media Matters.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200801110014

More than six years ago, long before Hillary Clinton began running for president, the Philadelphia Inquirer magazine reported that, according to an MSNBC colleague, Matthews had said of Clinton: "I hate her. I hate her. All that she stands for."

Even before that, Matthews told the January 20, 2000, Hardball audience, "Hillary Clinton bugs a lot of guys, I mean, really bugs people like maybe me on occasion. I'm not going to take a firm position here, because the election is not coming up yet. But let me just say this, she drives some of us absolutely nuts."

Not that there was much chance his feelings would go unnoticed by even the most casual Hardball viewer.

Matthews has referred to Clinton as "She devil." He has repeatedly likened Clinton to "Nurse Ratched," referring to the "scheming, manipulative" character in One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest who "asserts arbitrary control simply because she can." He has called her "Madame Defarge." And he has described male politicians who have endorsed Clinton as "castratos in the eunuch chorus."

Matthews has compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser" and questioned whether she is "a convincing mom." He refers to Clinton's "cold eyes" and the "cold look" she supposedly gives people; he says she speaks in a "scolding manner" and is "going to tell us what to do."

There is more, much more. And Chris Matthews has an effect on the others at MSNBC, who ape his behavior. When he was called out the response at the network was for them all to get surly--until the RNC told them that they had to cool it or Hillary might drop out entirely and spoil Karl Rove's Brokered Democratic Convention strategy.

2. The RW News Media is even more shameless. They have less of an effect on the primary, because Democrats do not watch Fox as much as MSNBC, but the stuff bleeds through the mainstream. Please read my journal "The Press v/ Hillary: Leaping Lesbians" for a summary of the right wing attacks on Hillary (all sexist in nature) that have been waged just since January 2007. Since many of the same pundits that appear on the right wing shows also appear on CNN and MSNBC programs this is another way for it to move into the mainstream. Plus, conservative columnists write for papers such as the WaPo and the NYT and syndicated columnists like Cal Thomas are everywhere.

Finally, I would enjoy seeing links to the many threads in which people say that they will only vote for a female nominee. I have seen a few people say that they will not vote for Obama for specific reasons, mostly related to the perception that he is slinging mud at Hillary. Since the RNC and the corporate media started the Democratic infighting between the two camps with their use of the old Pat Buchanan strategy "smears against one Democrat attributed to another Democrat" from CREEP 1972 as described here

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/stories/buchananmemo.htm

http://www.woodstockjournal.com/elections.html

I am saddened that so many people appear to have fallen for this oldest of old GOP dirty tricks. I say "appear to have fallen" because I am not convinced that people writing this stuff are all that they claim to be.

But please do cite example of specific threads in which people say that they will only vote for a female candidate Not threads in which they say that they will only vote for Hillary, unless they say that they are only voting for her because she is a woman and give no other reasons. Because

the idea that some Hillary supporters will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless it is a woman candidate

is a little hard for me to believe.

So I would like to see it with my own eyes.

I am sorry if the critical nature of this post offends you, however I am tired of seeing people who usually write well thought out essays turning out propaganda that does nothing but fan the flames of the fires that Karl Rove and his minions in the oppo rooms at the RNC have laid in their attempt to turn this primary into Chicago 1968. In this response I have attempted to open up lines of communication by writing the things that I know that some women---and men--must be thinking.

[MethuenProgressive]

215. No response from Nance on this yet?

I'm not surprised.
Good post, thanks.

[McCamy Taylor]

310. Didn't really expect one, but I thought I would try. Smart propagandist do not respond to criticism

because it detracts from a winning message. That is how you can tell the pros. It is very well written.

[aquart]

255. And doesn't even notice she's doing it.

[backscatter712]

50. She brought it on herself.

All the lies, the smears, the attacks, the lack of ethics, the insincerity.

Is it any surprise that everywhere she goes, she leaves a trail of resentment?

[hisownpetard]

223. Yup, that's what it all boils down to. Simple as that.

[aquart]

287. Then why is the vote still near fifty-fifty?

The way you talk, why would any sane person be for her, such a divider as she is?

Especially when Obama is a uniter, not a divider. Isn't he? We're all terribly united here on DU. But, I guess, if we're not, it's the fault of those mean Hillary people, and never those sweet, loving, embracing darlings who are as loving as their perfect candidate, Obama.

[grantcart]

51. This is the reason why Obama supporters cannot urge the end of the race

We cannot suggest that Hillary leave the race. They must come to the conclusion themselves.

[JohnnyLib2]

55. I believe there is, pardon the pun, a strawwoman being used here.

Somehow, the focus is on Clinton "losing her bid to become the Democratic nominee due to blatant sexism." Doesn't that skip right over sexism along the way, win or lose? Doesn't that minimize a problem that troubles many?

Sorry, Nance, can't go with you on this one.

[zalinda]

59. I have read other things of your's that I thought were

excellent, this is not one of them. You have, without a doubt, drunk the kool-aid. And, this is coming from someone who doesn't know if they will even vote in November, as I have no use for either of our "fine" candidates.

After Edwards left the race, Clinton had been last on my list of candidates to vote for. Obama supporters have put her above him now. I have never, in 40 years of elections, seen anything as disgusting as this primary. And, the vast majority of vitriol has come from Obama supporters. All of you have joined the ranks of the RW media, in trying to tear down another Clinton. Congratulations on joining the RW.

zalinda

[Celebration]

85. it is a math thing

Since 90% of the people here support Obama over Clinton, it isn't surprising that the vast majority of the vitriol has come from Obama supporters. If it is anything less than 90%, it would be a statistical anomaly.

[NanceGreggs]

86. This wasn't the point of my OP ...

... but since you chose to bring up the idea of "joining the RW", you might remember that it was Hillary who told voters that John McCain was a more viable candidate for the presidency than her fellow Democrat - who, according to her own words, is nothing more "than a speech he gave in 2002".

So don't coming cryin' to me about who is willing to "join the RW" if it suits their political purposes. We all know who was more than willing to do just that.

[zalinda]

189. Then please tell me, in all your fine wisdom

why it is okay to use every disgusting female slur against Hillary, but it is not okay to use every disgusting black slur against Obama? My opinion? It's okay to denigrate a woman before it is okay to denigrate a black person. Racism is worse than sexism.

I can't even begin to know all the disgusting female slurs that she's been called, cunt.... really, is that okay? I don't read all the threads and even I know that she's been pilloried.

Let's see what has Obama and/or his supporters been called, empty suit, inexperienced, kool-aid drinkers......pretty tame stuff compared to what has been thrown at Clinton.

zalinda

[NanceGreggs]

229. And where exactly did I say ...

... that using such terms is acceptable?

[jettison]

264. fence sitters

There is no such thing as a fence sitter in this campaign. If Obama is the nominee, and you refuse to vote for him, then you are essentially voting for McCain. It's really that simple. You would rather continue you with Bush's third term, then not have to "exact revenge" against some anonymous folks on the internet. What could possibly be more sad then that?

It is incredibly discouraging to see someone do something dreadful, like openly advocating an McCain presidency over an Obama one like Hillary did in the press, and then not only not call her on it, but cry "sexism" when others do.

Because she is a woman, do not point out that she lied.
Because she is a woman, do not call her on dirty tactics.
Because she is a woman, do not hold her to the same standards that we hold all other candidates.

It doesn't get more sexist then that. This does NOT excuse anyone calling Hillary a "bitch", or openly and with malice, mocking her. However, Obama is not responsible for his fans. Hillary isn't responsible for hers either. And again, if you're casting your vote based on what stranger may or may not have said on the internet then I have to question your sanity really, and also question if you're even mature enough to vote to begin with. This is kid's stuff here.

[zalinda]

308. Why thank you for looking deep in my heart and telling me

that you are more mature than I am. I can't stand Obama, and I don't like Clinton. I think neither will be a very good President, more importantly, I don't think either will win. I have been consistent with that from the beginning.

Obama is a manufactured candidate. He has gotten everything handed to him. Did he have to work a little, yeah. But tell that to those in the state senate that worked for years to get bills passed only to have them given to Obama so that HE could become a US senator. He grew up in Hawaii, woo, he really had a hard life. Got a scholarship to a prep school, and then got into Columbia (where he majored in Political Science) and then onto Harvard. He's had no real opponents in his entire political career. The only reason he is running now, is because Clinton is running. There is such a hate for the Clintons that it is irrational. How dare these 2 lower middle class people make something of themselves and actually win the Presidency. They should have stayed in Arkansas with the other low class people. They deserve better than what they have gotten from DU.

After what I've witnessed in this primary, I'm starting to wonder whether I'm really a democrat, because I really don't approve of what I've seen and read.

zalinda

[paulk]

61. where did you get this from?

"But the idea that some Hillary supporters will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless it is a woman candidate"

talk about a strawman....

[NanceGreggs]

77. In keeping with DU rules ...

... I am not pointing to specific posters here.

But, by way of example, you might check out a post that was voted-up on the Greatest Page just yesterday - by a woman Hill supporter declaring that she, and women like her, would be 'staying home' this November if Hillary was not the nominee.

[boston bean]

103. and the only reason for that could be is they are feminazi's nance, get real! nt

won't vote for a man. please tell me you don't believe that.

[saltpoint]

This OP is vividly real. In fact, given the consistently excellent quality of

her demonstrably thoughtful posts, one might even recommend that certain others consider aspiring to her level of discourse and analysis.

[paulk]

126. perhaps, then, you should have said "one" rather than "some".

:shrug:

[NanceGreggs]

132. I would have said "one" ...

... if it was one. But it's more than one, and the many "right-on" replies to the single OP I referred to are evidence of that fact.

Just because I specifically referred to one OP is not to be taken that it was a single incident of advocating the idea of not voting and/or leaving the party if Hillary is not the nominee.

[paulk]

186. that's not what you said - this bit about "not voting or leaving the

party" - you said not voting or leaving the party if the candidate wasn't a woman -

yes, I know you're going to say that woman is Hillary Clinton, still - that's a strange and inflammatory way to word things.

[jonestonesusa]

242. More Clintson supporters have said that they will not vote for Obama in the GE.

I think it was 28% of Clinton supporters that would vote for McCain if Obama wins, 19% of Obama supporters would vote for McCain. The question is slightly different, but those concerns have been raised as a negative against Obama. I'll post the link to the poll if I see it.

[Medusa]

64. Hillary is an "exceptionally attractive woman?"

Sorry Nance but you shot your credibility with me on that one line right there alone. :eyes:

[buff2]

69. Pfffft!

I wonder what YOU look like? There is nothing wrong with Hillary's looks. She looks a damn sight better than Michelle NObama!

[helderheid]

201. Are you kidding? She' was a KNOCKOUT:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/yausser/1326685086/

[Name removed]

67. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boston bean]

72. delete posted in wrong place

[Danger Mouse]

73. i see the 'rabies' level HRC supporters totally missed the point of this OP...

but nice job, anyway.
well done.

[Mme. Defarge]

75. Proud to recommend. n/t

[2rth2pwr]

79. In an era where the man she is running against still thinks it's OK to call

women "Sweetie", and his supporters encourage it, it's not a surprise that she has been facing an uphill struggle.

[anonymous171]

83. sweetiegate? lol

[Forkboy]

97. LOL

:crazy:

[NanceGreggs]

114. Ah, yes ...

... the "sweetie" scandal. With the world in its present state, what could be more important than denouncing the very idea that some people still insist on using endearing terms when speaking to one another.

It makes you wonder why we are wasting time discussing actual issues - like war, healthcare, education, the environment, unemployment, outsourcing, the crumbling infra-structure, etc.

Of course, there's always the outside chance that Hillary, being who she is, may have (!) actually used an endearing term or two in addressing her fellow human beings - in which case we'll have to throw both candidates to the curb and vote GOP.

[jettison]

265. sad

What's sad is that you have been programmed to respond with anger should someone actually call you sweetie, a term of endearment. My girlfriend calls me sweetie, and fluff, and honey bunny, and a million other cute names. I'm not even remotely offended. Other women call me "sweetie" as well, and I them. There is no malice. There is no hidden connotation. There is only love and respect.

What's sad is your post.

[brindis_desala]

89. What I find most amusing about this discussion

is the notion that Obama has somehow done Hillary wrong yet she is free to seek the blessings of
Rupert Murdoch and Richard Mellon Scaife (both of whom provide aid and comfort to sexists and racists alike). Fine --- all is fair in politics as in war, but then spare me the false outrage! The dirty little secret is that many women (not most by any means!) are outraged because they feel insulted that a black man is more acceptable to the dominant white patriarchy when the truth is most Democrats could care less about Chris Matthews' opinion much less some corporate T.V. blowhard. The problem for Hillary is that she chose to surround herself with lobbyist/advisers who are in stark opposition to many of the positions she claims to espouse. Sorry. If you're running as a Democrat in 2008 you can't have it both ways.

Great read Nance... as always.

[Auntie Bush]

125. Now that IS what I'd call a racist comment!

"The dirty little secret is that many women (not most by any means!) are outraged because they feel insulted that a black man is more acceptable to the dominant white patriarchy"

How can you utter such a comment?

[jonestonesusa]

244. What's racist about the comment?

I honestly don't see what's racist - what is discriminatory, against whom? It's a speculative comment, but the post taps into the fact that many, not all, white women benefit economically from patriarchy - more so, by and large, than black men do, in terms of household income and proximity to power if not actual political power. So, while it's speculative to say that there is outrage among some supporters of Clinton based on the idea that "it's their turn" to be president, it's a fair comment. I think you see some of this in the editorials against Obama by feminist foremothers Gloria Steinem and Robin Morgan.

Steinem piece:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/opinion/08steinem.html?_r=1&em&ex=1199941200&en=e3d49753c7f6da32&ei=5087%0A&oref=slogin

Morgan piece:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/robin_morgan/2008/02/goodbye_to_all_that_2.html

[Rosa Luxemburg]

92. We don't want a President who is hung up on being a victim

[boston bean]

94. You call someone a bitch and they call you on it and they're playing victim?

Sometimes a victim is a victim you know.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

forget all this gender stuff - the President has to deal with world leaders

and they aren't that respectful.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

95. forget all this gender stuff - the President has to deal with world leaders

and they aren't that respectful.

[rodeodance]

123. Hillary will deal with the world stuff AND the gender stuff

[Rosa Luxemburg]

236. as a Senator

[jettison]

266. I agree

If you've called Hillary a bitch then you have very little room to wiggle. It's deplorable. I'm voting for Obama, but that stuff drives me crazy.

[rodeodance]

100. Only in the hollow minds of many obama folk is she the victim. I see her as stron and couragous.

[Umbram]

127. I see her as strong as well...it's her followers here that make her seem fragile (nt)

[rodeodance]

138. no, its is BO fans who claim she is victim, she cries. ect ect ect

[BlueJac]

112. You are one of the best writers on this forum.....

Thank you again for another great post!


:applause:

[Scurrilous]

115. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Undercurrent]

118. Thank you for the great post!

I'm a 60 year old woman who lives alone in a small cabin in the woods of Washington state, and own micro business. My third business wholly owned, and operated by me. My daughter was born to me while I was a single woman working my way through college. Which I completed. My daughter is now an adult of 34, and is an accomplished professional. At one time I was married to a black man while living in the heart of central Texas. Klan country. I was shunned, and attacked both verbally, and physically in public.

I'm about as color blind, and gender blind as I can be. I was raised that way.

While I'm most certainly personally aware that sexism, and racism exist, it's not a reason, or excuse I've ever used for my adult life decisions.

I support Barack Obama, because he's the best candidate my party can send to do battle with the neocons, and take back our country from the corporatists. Period.

[merh]

128. Welcome to DU, Undercurrent.

thank you for your post and perspective. :hi:

[NanceGreggs]

135. You sound like my kind ...

... or should I say "our kind" of woman, Undercurrent.

Welcome to the DU discussion!

:hi:

[Bongo Prophet]

139. Please post more often, Undercurrent. A belated welcome to DU

I almost just welcomed you, but checked to see how long you have been registered - a whole year and only 7 posts? Your life story is an interesting one, and your input would be quite valued here. I would like to hear of your microbiz, and insights in general. We have such great people on DU, it truly broadens my horizons.

A fellow texan who just wishes I had a cabin in WA, ;)
bProphet

[Tarheel_Dem]

155. Undercurrent...you sound like one hell of a woman!

Glad to meet you. And I agree that you should post often. Very few of us can hold a candle to Nance, but your brief post was very insightful, and very much appreciated.

:hi:

[IronLionZion]

231. that was a wonderful post, welcome to DU.

I am certainly hoping to hear more from you.

25 year old Indian-American man here and I'm strongly supporting Barack Obama for the same reasons. I'm feeling really good about the election this time.

[liberaldem4ever]

248. Howdy Undercurrent!

From someone who lived most of their life in a tiny town in North Central Texas and moved to Washington State 12 years ago. I love living in WA-it is so beautiful here. :hi:

[TomBall Democrat]

121. One major detail you've overlooked is that

HRC would be no where near the nomination if she were not the wife of a former President.

This woman for woman stuff is amazing.

I wish that the women who are channeling their personal anger into the campaign were as outraged by:


Human Trafficking
Female Circumsion
Pay Disparity


Then, I might take them and their faulty logic a bit more seriously.

To be told I must vote for a woman because I'm a woman and have been mistreated by a patriarchial society, is bullshit.

And Molly Ivins would tell you so if she were still alive and kicking.

BTW, she was not a fan of the HRC, either.

[rodeodance]

124. get a life--no one is tell you to vote for Hillary because you are a women. Utter nonsense

[Beacool]

129. I will not vote for Obama because I think that he's the least experienced

and prepared to be president of the two remaining Democratic candidates, not becuase he is not a woman. Please, everyone spare me your usual outrage because it's not going to change my mind.

Interestingly enough, it's not just my opinion. I just came back from a weekend in the Lehigh Valley canvassing for two days and we heard a lot of the same from plenty of people.

[NanceGreggs]

137. I may not agree with your decision ...

... but I can't argue with the fact that you have based that decision on criteria that was well thought-out and arrived at through a sincere assessment of what you feel is important in a candidate.

Meet me here on Election Night - irrespective of who wins the nomination, I'll be proud to share a :toast: with a fellow Democrat!

[Beacool]

142. Thank you, but I don't think that I will last on this board that long.

This board is not Democratic, it has become only for Obama supporters. Hillary and her supporters are continually insulted and disrespected. I'm hanging here out of sheer stubbornness, but if Obama wins the nomination I will have lost all interest in the race. I'll support the rest of the ticket in my state, but that's about it. Win, lose, I couldn't care less.

Take care!

[NanceGreggs]

144. I'm truly sorry to hear that ...

... because if Obama wound up losing this race, it wouldn't change my determination in seeing to it that a Democrat was sworn-in next January - whether it was my candidate-of-choice or not.

On the other hand, thanks for proving my point that the "if-it's-not-Hillary-I-don't-care-if-we-win-the-election" crowd is ever-present on this board.

[Beacool]

150. It's beyond Hillary.

I don't like Obama, I find him to be arrogant and a slick operator. I also don't think that he deserves the presidency, particularly with his wafer thin record. I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I refuse to go along with the party this time around.

:shrug:

[NanceGreggs]

151. And I don't like Hillary ...

... but that wouldn't deter me in the least from voting for her - because it's not about one person in the WH, it's about appointments to the Supreme Court, it's about promoting the Democratic agenda, it's about a million and one things that are more important than ME, the individual.

I guess you just see things differently - like YOU being more important than the consequences of another four-to-eight years of a Republican in office.

[Tarheel_Dem]

157. why wait? you certainly add nothing but poison to this forum at this point...

sheer stubborness is not a character trait to be all that proud of...you share that trait with the current occupant of the oval office.

[Beacool]

187. I'll stay because we need divergent opinions

in a so called "Democratic" board. Poison? I guess to some of you who are blinded by this glib man, disagreeing with you over who is the best candidate would be considered poison.

If you could only see how many people are equally as enthusiastic for Hillary, you might be surprised. While canvassing in the Lehigh Valley this weekend many of the volunteers came back with the same story: to a lot of Democratic voters who support Hillary, it's either her or McCain.

I got the same response myself from a fair number of people. Mind you that when we go out we never criticize the opponent. We only ask for their support and answer any questions people may have about her stance on the issues.

When asked why wouldn't they vote for Sen. Obama if he were the nominee, the main reason given was: lack of experience, a few people also mentioned the Rev. Wright controversy.

[Tarheel_Dem]

209. I get the same reaction here in NC, where Obama's ahead by 23

points. So yours is a moot point, it's a standoff. In case you haven't looked lately, the polls suggest that an equal number on both sides say they won't vote for the other. And unlike you, I'll be kind and not tell you what people say to me about Hillary. Mind you, I haven't canvassed since the Bosnia "fairytale", and the Mark Penn/Colombia story broke, the hospital "fairytale". So I imagine Obama's increasing his leads nationwide as we speak.

You're not threatening me, and you're not threatening Obama. I'm sure he'd like to have your support in November, but that's between you and your conscience. If you, as a woman, are prepared to have the USSC move completely and irrevocably rightward, it's your choice. If you, as a woman, have decided to relinquish control of your reproductive rights, it's your choice. If you, as a woman, have children and/or grandchildren of use to the military, move them to Canada because McCain has already promised "more wars", it's your choice. Make no mistake, McCain is as anxious to hit Iran as Bush is, still your choice.

I, myself, once thought that I could vote for either one of the nominees, but with these latest revelations about Hillary, and "stubborness" like yours, makes that almost implausible for me.

[jettison]

270. It's her or McCain?

It's either the white candidate who is female like I am, or the white candidate who reminds me of my friends and my husband. Perfect. You're a republican. You could care less about their politics. It's a popularity contest for you.

This is just a hideous sentiment. And your peers share your viewpoint? Thank God I have no such friends.

"Friends don't let friends vote Republican."

[Beacool]

286. What peers???

This is the result we got in Allentown from dozens of canvassers when they returned at the end of the day. Many people, not all but a significant number, said that if Hillary did not win the nomination they would vote for McCain. These were registered Democrats, we didn't go to any Republican household.

[jettison]

269. This says sooooo much

You find him "arrogant" and "a slick operator". It's of the "I don't know what it is, but I just don't trust this man". It has nothing to do with reality or facts. You are predisposed not to like him based on his looks, the sound of his voice, and his eloquence.

Then, as an afterthought, "... and he's not experienced enough". Well, if you're not "experienced enough" to realize that you're essentially casting your vote for a Repub then, then I don't want you as part of the electorate either.

That whole "slick operator" business reminds me of my republican father who used to refer to Bill Clinton as "Slick Willy". It always disgusted me, and it digusts me coming from a fellow democrat as well."

[SaveAmerica]

160. "Hillary and her supporters are continually insulted and disrespected"

I wonder if those who say Hillary supporters are insulted and disrespected at DU ever notice what is written by some Hillary supporters? Take a look back over this thread and see which supporters of which candidate are calling names or disrespecting the other candidate's supporters. For example:

1. MassDemm says she's unable to think critically due to her support of Obama in #60 You are nothing more than a Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz, Chris Matthews in the eyes of many And it's well deserved. When you are blinded by your own support of a candidate and win at all costs and use no critical thinking, except in your very biased view, bash Hillary, you deserve to be in that club. Now that you've made it, I hope you're happy.

2. In # 70 MassDemm again: Is it the only reason, no, but to say it isn't a factor is plain stupidity.

3. rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Apr-07-08 12:00 AM
Response to Reply #70
122. Don't ASSume we are throwing her under the bus just because some disagree. How stupid!!

4. Bluenorthwest at #110 says "and you would not know it if it bite you on your pretentious butt".

5. rodeodance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Apr-06-08 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #92
100. Only in the hollow minds of many obama folk is she the victim. I see her as stron and couragous.

[redqueen]

233. Well... yeah... but that's...

different.

[jettison]

268. ?

You could care less if Bush is elected to his third term via McCain? Now that's just sad.

[drobert_bfm]

260. Good for you, but:

If Obama ends up being the candidate, will you then vote for him?

That's the real test here. However much one may dislike the other one's candidate, either of them would be a breath of fresh air compared to McBush The Third.

[democracy1st]

134. K & R

thanks

[saltpoint]

143. Sex & gender are not to blame for poorly-considered advisors and

political strategists. Men or women can make that mistake.

Sex & gender are not to blame for unearned entitlement, a sense that some candidates may have that they should be considered first and foremost over others, despite a raw comparison of attributes and insights. Men or women can hold that sense of entitlement.

Sex & gender are not to blame for pollster/advisors who collect reward for commitments which run contrary to the stated ideological tenets of one's candidacy. Men or women can make that mistake.

Sex & gender are not to blame for unleashing tone-deaf surrogates to undermine one's opponents based on race, background, personal faith, or public perception. Men or women can make that mistake.

But in this primary cycle, a woman has made those mistakes. She's made them repeatedly. She's mismanaged her strategy and mis-chosen her strategists, she's down in funds and suffering from a grievous case of delegate envy. Recent polling suggests that her once-huge lead in the Keystone State is narrowing.

This OP is forcefully and persuasively written, and I've read it a couple times extra for sheer enjoyment and appreciation. You want some ideas to carry from the 2008 election cycle? Nance's Du posts are an excellent starting point.

Bravo, Nance.

[NanceGreggs]

145. As always, my dear Old Crusoe ...

... my goal in life is to be but half the person you encourage me to believe I already am.

:hug:

(In these PC times, I hope it is still appropriate to hug!)

[saltpoint]

147. a hug right back, Nance, along with a thanks for yet another

splended-written and thoughtfully considered post.

You give this joint class.

[hisownpetard]

225. "You give this joint class." As do you, OC. Thanks!

:headbang:

[saltpoint]

300. And you as well, dammit. Howdy-do. Good to see ya around on the

boards.

[saltpoint]

146. 84th rec and proud of it.

[Beregond2]

148. Attractive?

Excellent post; but you're kidding about the "extraordinarily attractive" part, right? Even her most fervent admireres would hardly claim that.

[NanceGreggs]

149. I think she's a physically beautiful woman ...

... and, judging from photos from the past, has always been so.

[boston bean]

169. All this attention to her physical appearance, I assume, could not be due to pervasive sexism? nt

[NanceGreggs]

232. Ah, yes, pervasive sexism ...

It's everywhere! One should never comment on the fact that someone is attractive, because that's SEXIST!

:sarcasm:

[jettison]

271. Obama

The View called Obama "sexy". By your logic, that was a sexist statement. Actually, if you judge any woman's looks then it must be "sexist". Is it any wonder that our society has grown so demented?

[saltpoint]

299. Sexism is so pervasive, in fact, that I heard that attractive people

date each other all the time.

Swear to god.

You know what? Senator Clinton looks great. She's looked great for a while, but especially this winter and now early spring. The OP said so. Why is that occasion for you to launch into yet another of your shrieking harpie acts about sexism?

Jesus.

[green917]

152. Excellent post

As a longtime lurker here and admirer of your esteemed writing ability Nance, allow me to say kudos for your exceptional work here!

I have read through all the comments on this thread and I recall seeing one wherein a supporter of Sen. Clinton said something about values affecting the choice we all, as Democrats, have to make in who we are supporting to be our nominee. Well, I couldn't agree more. The main value that I have looked for in a candidate after living under the Bush regime for the last 7+ years is integrity.

I had a discussion with a coworker last night which was very similar to the one happening in this thread. She said that she wishes for Sen. Clinton to be the nominee because, "it's time we broke the glass ceiling and elected a woman to the Presidency."

I shall tell you now what I told her, as I think you share my thoughts on the matter:

I don't have any problem at all with electing a woman President of the United States. In fact, I would love for us to break that glass ceiling. I, however, have to follow my heart and choose the candidate that I feel best represents those values that Sen. Clinton's supporter spoke of somewhere upthread. Sen. Clinton has been proven, on more than 1 occasion now, to have been cavalier with the truth (at best) and to have used tactics that I consider to be unethical and underhanded. I can't, in good conscience support that type of behavior whether the individual in question is a woman, a man, black, white, or purple. If I wanted to vote for someone who is going to lie to me to save their butt, I would become a Republican.

[NanceGreggs]

153. As always ...

... I consider it a special 'honour' when someone chooses one of my threads to post for the first time.

"If I wanted to vote for someone who is going to lie to me to save their butt, I would become a Republican."

An instant classic of a comment!

Thanks so much for your kind words, and welcome to the DU discussion - I hope we'll be hearing more from you in future!

:hi:

[green917]

156. The honour is mine

:)

[Tarheel_Dem]

158. Welcome green917,.... great post. This thread is just loaded

with them.

:hi: :applause:

[Tarheel_Dem]

159. Nance....here's to another excellent post!

:applause: :toast: :applause:

[Undercurrent]

161. thanks all

Considering the ugly mess our nation is in -- the erosion of our civil liberties, elites running amok severely damaging our economic underpinnings, full tilt imperialism abroad, ignoring of poverty, lack of health care, a broken education system, Katrina, and much more -- if a Democrat chooses NOT to vote Democratic, in a fit of pique, they are more than childish. They are selfish.

It's one of the most pointless things I have seen come out of this primary season, and it saddens me to no end.

Fair weather Democrats who will only support the party if they get their way. Huh? :wtf:

[Mimosa]

162. 2 peas in the pod: Hillary didn't do it on her own

I have nothing against Hillary which I don't hold against her smarmy corporate loving, Chinese money taking husband. They're 2 peas in the same pod.

NAFTA supporting, outsourcing, union-busting, Wal-Mart Board, Tyson beneficiary Hillary. If Hillary were a man and Bill's brother, cousin, whatever she'd be the same: an opportunist with ambitions who is a liar and out for herself. I can't stand the idea of a woman whining and sobbing that we should support her because she's a woman.

What has she done for anybody? She lies about a lot. In the office of President this is dangerous. We already have a Liar-in-Chief in the White House.

[AGirl]

164. Thank you for being increasingly bias.

Not voting or writing in Hillary or voting Nadar is not giving up, inaction is action.

[bagimin]

295. One can NOT be bias

One may,however be biased.

[Rottenmac]

167. Um...

Can anyone doubt that being an exceptionally attractive woman, she has experienced actual sexual harassment over her long career?

I'm going to have to politely disagree there. Not to say the 70's were a good time for ANYONE, but IMHO she was never 'exceptionally attractive'.

The rest of your argument, as ever, is spot-on.

[JDwho]

181. Amazing how many are commenting on the "attractive" remark

Nance raised many valid issues, and people are commenting on the "exceptionally attractive" remark with remarkable focus? Some would find her attractive by the way...but I think the point the OP made was missed by many. Are we debating how good looking Obama is? Perhaps, I missed that thread. Anyway, you were one of many who took their time to call HRC unattractive. Sexism and racism exists, unfortunately. The many uncalled for and irrelevant comments regarding her beauty, or lack of, proves this. Nance was merely stating that women (including HC) face this challenge. Choose not to believe it, but that doesn't mean women don't experience this throughout their lives. No, I'm not an HRC fan, but this is a valid women's issue.

[PylesMalfunction]

238. Actually...

I've had two women tell me that the only reason why I'm voting for Obama is because I think he's hot. :eyes: Nice, huh? :mad:

[stellanoir]

170. It could be less her gender than her caustic persona, management style,

history, and age.

Just saying.

[natrat]

171. if clinton were graceful and more honest bla bla bla...

[DWilliamsamh]

172. Kick and 97th rec....

I have been pointing this out to folks in the real world for about a month now....no doubt you saw it first.

I have no problem admitting that from every post I have read of yours, I know you are far sharper than I, not to mention a far better writer. Even if you are "only a girl." Of course after I read you posts my thoughts are slightly different on that theme, it's more like "atta girl!" or "THAT's my GIRL!!"

Sexistly Yours,

DWilliamsAMH

PS. Is "Sexistly" a word? I don't think so, LOL.

[JayFredMuggs]

173. Great Topic, and well covered and

I even appreciated reading all the responses from the Hillary supporters, even though I think many of them missed the points raised here

I recommend this thread to all.

[tomp]

175. d'amato retired, giulliani got prostate cancer....

....weak repub opponent in ny senate race, lots of corporate funding, name recognition as first (unofficial advisor to bill and therefore taking credit for bill's accomplishments) lady....

[JDwho]

176. Well written

Your posts provoke thought, and that is always a good thing. This, however, is a great thing. I have been undecided for a while due to the attitudes of Obama posters. Yet, Hillary's lie about sniper fire crawled under my skin like a parasite and I couldn't shake it. As a female, I'm greatly offended by some of the remarks here on DU, and visit less frequently. I, unlike those you speak of, will vote for the Democratic party. I am loyal to Democracy, not an individual. I'll wait until someone is sworn in for that. This hatred and disrespect for a female that has come this far in a presidential race is unprecedented and should be regarded as such. It is a great accomplishment for anyone. That aside, I will vote with my party, whatever the results may be. Those who choose not to vote because they don't get their way are hurting us, and doing their part to ensure " one hundred more years of war". Ignorance is not bliss and these loyal Hillary supporters need to vote for the good of their party and their country, and appreciate the effort and struggles both candidates have surely endured (whether sexism or racism). Logic should prevail; I only hope it does.

[beezlebum]

179. yet again, nance...

kick and rec.

i also read a reply yesterday re: sexist! the poster claimed that (paraphrased) "obama is doing it the black way, blah blah suppressing women etc," a sort of racism within a sexist charge type of reply. those are my favorites.

[happygoluckytoyou]

182. IT IS NOT THAT SHE IS A WOMAN.... IT IS THAT SHE CAME IN 2ND

THERE WERE 9 IN THE BEGINNING..... 9....

AND EACH OF THE 9 FELL IN TURN, INCLUDING MY CANDIDATE EDWARDS....

OUT OF 9 THE TOP TWO...... 2 ...... TWO...... A WOMAN AND A BLACK MAN

AND THE WINNER IS..... THE BLACK MAN

-THAT IS BY NO MEANS A PUT DOWN TO WOMEN..... SHE CAME IN 2ND

[LynneSin]

183. So if I vote for Obama, I'm sexist but if I vote for Hillary I'm a racist

Who do I vote for so I don't offend anyone?

:shrug:

[JohnnyLib2]

185. Combined ticket.

:hide:

[Evergreen Emerald]

188. Et Tu Nancy?

Ignoring the elephant in the living room will not make it go away. Pretending that sexism does not exist will not help our female children to break down those barriers that are keeping Clinton a "hairs breath" away from reaching her goals. Sorry, almost there is not good enough. I will not be appeased. Women should not be appeased.

You deny that Clinton's uphill battle has anything to do with sexism as you wade through the posts and threads that confirm the obvious sexism in our society. And that evidence is from DU--a supposedly progressive board. The media also confirms the double standard that Clinton must endure.

You site reasons for her downfall and state that they have nothing to do with her gender. I disagree. The reasons you cited, show the double standard. She has acted no differently than Obama and yet he gets a free pass while her "misspeaks" are aired 24/7 after distortion. The double standard is evident. And I believe it is due to gender.

The only reason you, Nancy, are allowed to write and publish, rather than be barefoot and pregnant in the Kitchen, is because women like Clinton paved your way, breaking down barriers and fighting harder than her male counterparts. For you to deny that it exists does a disservice to all of the women who are still fighting and all of the girls who will have to fight twice as hard.

And one more thing: pointing to sexism, shinning a light on it, bringing it out into the open is not crying "victimization." Suggesting that those who uncover that elephant are wanting to be "victims" is an attempt to keep it hidden.

And seeing the debauchery and vilification that has occurred with Clinton--shows that our girls have a tough battle ahead.

Et Tu Nancy?

[LaurenG]

192. Yes there is still sexism, the OP stated it in very simple and for me at least

easy to understand terms. The fact that some of us are voting for someone else has NOTHING to do with her gender.

It has to do with the lies she tells and the way she votes. As I said below, were she a male I would not vote for her in the primaries either based on deceit and voting record.

[Evergreen Emerald]

194. The way she votes is no different than Obama

They have the same records. The "lies" are distortions created and twisted by the media...the "lies" no different than Obama tells, but of course the media ignores them.

Nancy said her downfall has nothing to do with gender. I disagree. She is not on an even playing field. The fact that she is a "hair's breath away" is despite the sexism and has more to do with her fighting power than with a gracious society.

When it is ok to call (on a PROGRESSIVE board) a Senator a whore and a C-ut, it is a sign: we have far to go. To ignore that sexism plays a role, makes it harder for our daughters.

[LaurenG]

197. It is NEVER Ok to use the terms you have mentioned

I hate them. I would have LOVED to vote for a female president, it's not the female part most of us have a problem with it's her handling and response to her mistakes. Take a look at my posts, I think that many things that are made a big deal of are stupid, but she also says things that I find incredibly unpresidential (unless you count bush). The following are not made up stories, they are live (in front of all of us) failures to just tell the truth. Here are just three not to mention the McCain statement:

NAFTA
Iraq
Bosnia

[boston bean]

205. Yeah and some can't stand Obama for is stands

Wright
Rezko
Race baiting

So stop trying to belittle women who know that sexism exists and that it is part of it, just like racism is.

[LaurenG]

210. I am not belittling anyone but you seem to be doing a great job of

belittling the woman on the board. Please be mindful that you may be speaking with a female and degrading her over her choices, I'd think a feminist like you would want to allow all women their voices.

Do you not like Obama because he's a man? Are you voting for Senator Clinton because Senator Obama is a man?

If that isn't your reason then could it be that you disagree with what he stands for?

If so you now understand.

I prefer Obama, I agree with him and like his vision more. I do not like the fact that Senator Clinton won't be honest with us. I'm not going to stay home or vote McCain if she wins the nomination though, I just very much prefer Obama.

[damonm]

281. O RLY?

If their voting records are identical, as you claim, why then did Clinton vote FOR the 2005 Bankruptcy bill that Obama voted AGAINST? Why then did Clinton vote AGAINST the amendment that would have banned the use of cluster munitions in civilian areas that Obama voted FOR?

I have yet to see ANY Clinton supporter defend her on these two votes.

[Evergreen Emerald]

301. I suggest you do your home work

Clinton, Obama, McCain, and the Bankruptcy Bill
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2008/02/18/clinton-obama-mccain-and-the-bankruptcy-bill/


And remember, that Obama voted to refuse to cap the interest rates, allowing credit companies to raise their rates as high as they want...he even refused to cap it at 30%. So, when you attack people on their records--don't be a hypocrite

REgarding cluster bombs: I know that Clinton is not a baby killer, so I know that there must be something in the bill that someone attached that would make it a bad bill. To suggest that she is "for cluster bombs" is one of the stupidest things I have ever heard.

[NanceGreggs]

241. In the OP, I clearly state ...

... that Hillary, being a woman of her age and a professional woman, has no doubt faces sexism, but did not allow it to keep her from achieving what she has. So how that amounts to my "pretending it doesn't exist" is beyond me.

"She has acted no differently than Obama, and yet he gets a free pass." Obama didn't say that McCain was a more viable candidate for POTUS than his fellow Dem, didn't lie about sniper-fire in Bosnia, etc. Her mis-steps and mis-statements have cost her support - and have nothing to do with her gender. And I seem to remember 24/7 coverage of Wright; so much for that 'free pass'.

But here's an example of exactly what I am talking about: "Sorry, almost there is not good enough. I will not be appeased. Women should not be appeased."

Not good enough for who? Does Hillary have a 'right' to the presidency because she's a woman, and breaking the glass ceiling outweighs every other consideration? It doesn't matter that more voters want Obama than Hill - they should all just vote for her because it's "a woman's turn"? Women should not be appeased? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

What truly enrages me about some (not all, but some) Hillary supporters is the fact they think sexism is the answer to everything that goes wrong in Hill's campaign. We have all watched her numbers go down directly after a mis-statement, a contradiction, a comment that angered supporters, the Bosnia lie - but to hear some Hill supporters tell it, it's because she's a woman. There can be no other reason.

Of course, the biggest reason that Obama is ahead is because more people are voting for him than Hillary - and it couldn't possibly be that it's because more people want him as their president. It can only be a direct result of people not voting for Hillary because she's a woman.

[Evergreen Emerald]

302. Actually, you minimized the sexism and suggested

that sexism has no role in this election when you only have to look to the posts on this board to see the proof that sexism is at the forefront of this election.

YOu suggest that Obama has not lied or that he has not suggested that McCain would be better than a fellow dem. I see that you choose to limit your outrage as Obama has attacked a fellow democrat horrifically, has lied about NAFTA, about the Bankruptcy bill, and numerous other instances, but you only want to focus on anything and everything Clinton. She has done nothing more than Obama has in this campaign, and I suggest that when Obama used race to win SC--it was the worst thing done to any Democrat: to accuse them of "Racism!" Yet, you allow that to pass.

Obama is ahead because he is better at lying. Obama is ahead because the world is not ready for a woman. Obama is ahead because of Bush and we want change so badly. Obama is ahead because the media is giving him a leg up while vilifying Clinton (and I believe that is also gender related). There are many reasons for Obama's victories. One of the reasons is sexism.

What truly enrages me is to see "feminists" deny sexism, thereby keeping it hidden and alive and detrimental to our daughters.

What truly enrages me is to see how hard we have fought our whole lives for equality and how little we have gained.

[NanceGreggs]

303. "Obama is ahead because the world is not ready for a woman."

Of course. It couldn't possibly be that he's ahead because more people support his vision of the presidency than support Hillary's view of it.

It's got to be sexism - there just couldn't be any other explanation.

"What truly enrages me is to see how hard we have fought our whole lives for equality and how little we have gained."

Equality, by its very definition, means taking responsibility for a poorly-run campaign, mis-steps, contradictions, positions that have angered the voters, and out-and-out lying as being the cause and effect of losing the nomination - and not crying "sexism" when your candidate's losing position is so obviously the result of these factors.

If Hillary had never had support from the get-go, you'd have an argument. But she's been losing support after having once held the lead. Did everyone just find out she's a woman?

[Evergreen Emerald]

306. As I have stated, to deny that sexism plays any role in this election

is to deny reality.


Equality, by its very definition, means taking responsibility for a poorly-run campaign, mis-steps, contradictions, positions that have angered the voters, and out-and-out lying as being the cause and effect of losing the nomination - and not crying "sexism" when your candidate's losing position is so obviously the result of these factors.


I keep reading your reasons for not supporting her. And none of them have anything to do with issues. As I have stated: the "poorly run campaign" the "mis-steps" the "contradictions" have been done BY EVERY CANDIDATE including OBAMA. But they are highlighted, distorted, created, and repeated 24/7 in an effort to dehumanize, attack and destroy her candidacy. It is a shame that people cannot see through that. If you truly looked at the history of this election, you will see that she has done no different in running her campaign than Obama has. He is getting free pass. And part of the reason she is vilified and her EVERY ACTION is attacked is because she is a woman who is challenging the male power structure.

[helderheid]

190. Excellent!

[LaurenG]

191. Excellent! K&R

I understand the angst Senator Clinton's supporters feel. This is a very frustrating primary season and I agree that although there is still sexism in this country the people of democratic underground are not generally sexist. I have seen so many people use their words carelessly and get themselves ridden out on a rail here or at the least beaten severely about the head and neck.

I am voting for Senator Obama, though he was not my first choice, I am choosing him because he has a better handle on the direction I think the country needs to go, and he voted against the war in Iraq which is very important to me. If senator Clinton were a male, and had done and said the very same things that she has I would still NOT.VOTE.FOR.SENATOR CLINTON. So no it's not about sex it's about trust.

I am looking for peace in my lifetime, hopefully whoever wins is too.

[saltpoint]

193. Here's a kick for April 7th.

[burythehatchet]

196. Another great effort Nance. Reading the pathetic Hillaroid replies

once again reinforces the fact that the Clintons are the most harmful and divisive duo in the Dem party. They really ought to become Republicans and take the DLC with them. Progressives need a voice and the Clinton's will never be it. They are the antithesiss of progressicve ideology. Oh yeah, and she's a "gal".

When she says crap like "the boys always used to tell me to quit", it is simply another example of her using sexism to her advantage when it suits her.

I'm not as gracious as you Nance, I think she is a horrible person and a worse candidate.

[EnemyOfTheocracy]

199. I SECOND THAT..

she is a vile person.
a elephant in donkey's clothing.
blind ambition and power at all costs.
rules that should only apply to her if she is winning.
i loathe Shrillary Clintoon.

[Orsino]

204. Sexism is a factor, I'm sure...

...but impossible to quantify, as is the racism that dogs Obama. We need not look to sexism to explain the fact that Clinton is being edged out of the nomination. They are two popular, charismatic candidates, and only one can be ahead.

[wowimthere]

206. K&R Well stated and...

I don't understand how any one can look at race and gender as the only criteria for voting for a candidate. That is mind boggling to hear that someone will only vote on the basis of gender or race instead of the issues and the character and judgment of the candidates. I liked Hillary Clinton some time ago before her war vote but afterwards she has shown a clumsiness that has nothing to do with her gender and more to do with how she has run her campaign, how she processes government and electoral concerns. Obama has run a far better campaign and he also has a better grasp of the issues facing American and based on his votes and his what he stands for seems poised to take over the mess of the last 7 years and turn it around. Just looking at her campaign signals disaster in the making. That has nothing to do with her gender, it has to do with her character.

[elehhhhna]

207. "...she... has often dealt with real sexism in the workplace "

Yeah! Like when she was made the first & only female partner when hired by the Rose Firm -- immediately after honey was sworn in as Governor. No coincidence there, right?

She is the ultimate affirmative-action gal, all b/c of who she's married to.

Admit it.

[elehhhhna]

208. "...she... has often dealt with real sexism in the workplace "

Yeah! Like when she was made the first & only female partner when hired by the Rose Firm -- immediately after honey was sworn in as Governor. No coincidence there, right?

She is the ultimate affirmative-action gal, all b/c of who she's married to.

Admit it.

[AdamSC]

212. Margaret Thatcher, Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi

What did all of these women have in common? As Christopher Hitchens and Andrew Sullivan both so aptly noted on The Tim Russert Show this weekend, none of them ever played the "Gender Card." Hillary Clinton has stooped to new lows by trying to pit her loss as an example of sexism. It's because she is the wife of a powerful ex-president that the press hasn't run her out of this race yet. This hardly empowers women in this country. Feminists should be pissed.

[MethuenProgressive]

214. A StrawWoman from Nance.

But the idea that some Hillary supporters will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless it is a woman candidate is not only abhorrent to members of the party, I would venture to say it would be abhorrent to Hillary Clinton herself – because if that kind of mindset was something she approved of as a legitimate recourse, she wouldn't be where she is right now.

Please Nance, set your rant aside for a second and show the class where you claim you've seen a great crying that some are saying they'll only vote for a female.

I am not, nor have I ever been, a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the presidency,

No kidding. But up to now, at least, you've based your rants in reality.

[ExPatLeftist]

216. Good post! Hillary's actions have caused a lot of people...

...to dislike her for her tactics. That is a simple fact.

What boggles my mind is how many of her supporters try to look for excuses or even convince others that they "should not" dislike her tactics.

People gain the impressions that they gain of someone, and different things bother different people to different degrees. Instead of pointing out the good about their candidate, I see so many people here getting pissed that people are offended or bothered by different things than they themselves would be. It makes no sense.

The fact is that Hillary's actions have turned away a LOT of prospective supporters. Not her background or the content of her trousers, but her very campaign tactics. Getting pissed at people for their feelings about a candidate's actions is more than a waste of time - it is counterproductive.

Perhaps Hillary, and those that still support her, should consider addressing the actions that have caused the real-world dissatisfaction with her candidacy rather than trying to convince everyone that they should not be dissatisfied. Just a thought.

[hisownpetard]

219. Have to disagree, Nance, on one point: Nothing that could get Hillary elected

(repeat, *nothing*) is abhorrent to her.

Tu wit: Mark Penn.:hi:

[immoderate]

222. Your writing rivals crystal for clarity. And yet...

Sometimes it's a mirror for those who want to show the flaws in their reflection.

If folks want to blame sexism for Hillary's decline, I guess they should give credit to racism for Obama's ascendence. Yeah, it must be the unbounded love and respect that black folks receive in America that makes Obama the overwhelming favorite. But I guess Geraldine Ferraro beat me to that one.

The fact is, that it's just the arrival of a phenomenal talent, in the person of Barack, that has led Hillary to commit a series of unforced errors, which some of her supporters are deliberately blind to. It couldn't be Hillary's fault, so it must be sexism. Recently the denial became apparent to me in the "Keith Olberman is a sexist" thread, where, when I asked for examples of this alleged sexism, someone replied that he portrayed Paris Hilton as a bimbo. :wtf: That was the only example she could come up with. :rofl:

Someone in my weekly meetup group accused me of sexism because I said I didn't like Hillary. Fact is, I didn't like Bill much either, in spite of the fact that I am a strong supporter of oral sex. Was she surprised to learn that I favored Carol Mosely-Brown in the previous election, and I support Barbara Boxer, though I'm no longer in California.

Anyway it's surprising to see you being attacked here, when what you are saying is as clear as, well, the writings of NanceGreggs!

--IMM

[redqueen]

234. "it's surprising to see you being attacked here,.."

Is it really, though?

[aquart]

249. Obama's dowry is what? 90% of a 17% minority?

Can we please stop pretending his color ain't an asset?

You can congratulate yourselves on not being racists when you go gung ho for that brilliant and inspiring Chinese American. Laotian American? Got any of those coming up the pipe?

With his credentials, Obama would be just one of a bunch if he were white, and not even farther than a city council seat if he were Asian.

Black is his big ASSET. And he can thank Martin Luther King, Jr. and all the people who marched with him for it.

[immoderate]

311. So why isn't Al Sharpton president?

--IMM

[whathappened]

224. think back

all the hype the news were spreading back in let say around the year 2000 , both hill and obama were elected to senete and right from there on the msm were pushing these 2 for head cheese of the land , and we did'nt even no obama then , so i say this was a well organized plot for these 2 to get the nom for presadent , no matter what , we passed right by some mitey fine people to get these 2 in the front , these 2 both suck for our nations leader , i will hold my nose and vote for one of them , but like i said they are just paper faces

[knixphan]

227. as a Kucinich guy, I can't argue with that at all.

[redqueen]

228. Logic!

It is in very short supply these days...

[cui bono]

235. Absolutely spot on. Thank you. One other point...

By having that attitude: "some Hillary supporters will not vote for the Democratic nominee unless it is a woman candidate is not only abhorrent to members of the party, I would venture to say it would be abhorrent to Hillary Clinton herself" they are practicing sexism themselves. Do they want her to win just because she is a woman? I certainly don't. And you can bet I don't want to gain anything in my life just because I'm female, I want to earn it, like I know I can. And I want people to feel I've earned it as well. I would love to see a woman president but it has to be a woman who I feel will be the best Dem nominee, not just the default female candidate. And for me she isn't that by a long shot.

[Kurovski]

237. This is all good and well, Nance...

but I'm still waiting for that beer I asked you to bring me last week.

To show what a magnanimous guy I am, I will vote for Sen. Clinton should she be our nominee. This, despite the fact that no woman here at DU will deliver a beer to me while I sit in front of my television set.

And to think that I only bark out the order at half-volume, and would present a nice "thank you" by way of a gentle pat on the rump. I just don't understand women. :shrug:

K&R.

[NanceGreggs]

243. Sorry, hon!

Here ya go :toast:

You know I can't resist it when you give me that sweet-talkin'!

[Kurovski]

257. And I thank you.

I don't even drink beer!


*pat* *pat* ;-)

[liberaldem4ever]

245. Proud to K&R this post

Thanks NanceGreggs. My 16 year old son sat down at the computer when I got up and read your post. He told me he thought whoever wrote this was really smart. He had never read anything on DU before and wanted to know if he could sign up for DU too. I thought that was really cool. You have a fan NanceGreggs.

[NanceGreggs]

256. WOW!

I am truly amazed that a 16-year-old would be interested in my scribblings.

Thanks! :blush:

[aquart]

246. This is breathtakingly disingenuous.

So now Hillary supporters are threatening to take their votes and go home? Like the Obama supporters have been threatening to do all along? How interesting. Got sick of you, did they?

But leading into it with Hillary is not a victim of sexism because she's a candidate for president which she couldn't be if she was a victim of sexism and, being a woman, knows what REAL sexism looks like? That is such a beautifully twisted pretzel I wish I could feed it to George.

I appreciate how hard you have to work to tell yourself you are NOT engaging in sexism when you support the inspiring black man over the nasty white woman.

Nah, Hillary ain't a victim of sexism. And you Obama supporters ain't sexist. You're just supporting the better candidate who has SO MUCH EXPERIENCE as an Illinois politician and...yeah, that community activism stuff. And...and...

Hillary can't ever say she was actively consulted by her husband during his two terms. Not ever. But he respected her opinions going in, appointing her to oversee healthcare, getting their heads handed to them for it...so they didn't talk about it in public anymore. But you really think she wasn't in on the decisions of the Clinton administration? That's where you are being blatantly disingenuous. You KNOW that the so-called padded resume is probably a whole lot stronger if the truth could be told, but truth isn't what's wanted, it's image, endless image.

Well, endless image is what you're going to get. And you also get to comfort yourself with how you weren't being sexist and you will, OF COURSE, support a GOOD woman candidate for president, as soon as one gets the courage and money to go thru what Hillary is going thru. When do you think that will be, btw?

[NanceGreggs]

254. Thank you for making my point for me!!!

Firstly, the OP was about women who are threatening to "take their vote and go home" because if Hillary loses, it's because of sexism - and, as one put it yesterday, "I am tired of being bullied" by a party that "vilifies its women members".

The "pretzel logic" you're referring to is your own, as you have obviously not comprehended what I've written. I'll just leave it at that.

"You Obama supporters ain't sexist. You're just supporting the better candidate who has SO MUCH EXPERIENCE as an Illinois politician ..." That's exactly the attitude I'm talking about. It is not even possible that people support Obama because they prefer him as their president. No, no, no - the ONLY possibility that exists here is that every voter in the entire country who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist. They're not voting FOR Obama - they're just voting AGAINST a woman candidate. It's a vast conspiracy - everyone is just out to get Hill.

"But you really think she wasn't in on the decisions of the Clinton administration? That's where you are being blatantly disingenuous."

Please go back to the OP - actually, go back through EVERY post I've ever made on this board, if you want - and show me a single instance where I've even MENTIONED Hillary's input into administration decisions.

But let me save you the trouble - you won't find any such comment, here or elsewhere. But you don't seem to allow facts to stand in the way of your statements in any event.

[aquart]

258. Keep comforting yourself with that.

You will, of course, support a woman candidate for president SOMEDAY. When a truly worthy one comes along, right?

I will not, however, hold my breath.

Content yourself with voting for the inspiring black guy with the mediocre credentials. That's a first, too. That's a NOBLE first. You can feel all good about yourself doing it.

And it's Hillary's fault you can't feel good about supporting her. Not because she's a woman. Nuh uh.

This is a rational, reasoned, intelligent decision on your part.

Got it.

LOL!

[NanceGreggs]

261. Although I have never supported Hill's candidacy ...

... I was a big fan of hers for years. And if you look through my journal, you will see many glowing OPs I've written about her.

"And it's Hillary's fault you can't feel good about supporting her."

Yes, it most certainly is her fault. I don't want a president who agrees to certain rules and then wants them changed when it's to her advantage. I don't want a president who thinks it appropriate to dismiss her opponent "as a speech he made in 2002", while telling voters that the GOP nominee is superior to a fellow Democrat. I don't want a president who thinks that appealing to SDs to overturn the will of the people and hand her the presidency is somehow democratic. And I especially don't want a president who lies about sniper-fire in Bosnia and then, when caught in the lie, excuses it by saying she was tired instead of accepting responsibility for her lie.

Her gender has nothing to do with all of the above. And if Obama were a woman, he'd still have my support - because I, unlike you, don't think gender should play a role in who I choose to support.

[redqueen]

267. Hey... some of us think her ties to Bill are a NEGATIVE.

He was the one who pushed NAFTA so hard, remember?

And he hasn't changed.


If the donations from Giustra aren't enough, at least read the part about Nazarbayev.

:puke:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html?n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/People/N/Nazarbayev,%20Nursultan&pagewanted=all

[aquart]

283. Totally fair on NAFTA.

Not that I ever said Hillary always agreed with Bill or was his clone or, as some need to believe, his surrogate or puppet. But if you hate her for not stopping NAFTA, GO FOR IT. Nasty, stupid bill. Can I add some ammo on banking deregulation? Repealing Glass Steagel was the dumbest.

Nazarbayev? Can't sell me with that one. If Iraq hasn't taught that it's better to cozy up to dictators than invade and depose, nothing will.

Pathetic that you need to resort to juvenile emoticons, however. Unless, of course, you ARE a juvenile, in which case I apologize because you can't help yourself.

[redqueen]

288. I don't *need* to... I choose to. Mea fucking culpa for not meeting your high standards.

As for Nazarbayev... Bill's cozying up to him while this country is talking shit about his stranglehold on 'democracy' and shitty human rights record?

Care to explain the logic that makes you think thats "ok"?

[aquart]

291. Hold on.

Bill is going against Bush policies and you are assuming the purity, innocence, and dependable truthfulness of the Bush policies?

Why?

[redqueen]

292. Bush policies?

Did you even bother to read the piece? HILLARY was raking that guy over the coals.

Care to try again?

[aquart]

294. My mistake. Never occurred to me you would call Hillary "this country."

But, how sweet of you.

[redqueen]

312. I didn't call her this country.

Split hairs much?

When I said this country - I meant there was pretty much a consensus here (and Hillary agreed) that the guy shouldn't be the head of OSCOE.

You ever gonna get around to explaining how Bill's helping him get the position was a good thing?

[Sparkly]

247. No doubt she got where she is in *spite* of discrimination, double-standards, etc.

Which doesn't mean these aren't infuriating anyway.

I don't think she'll lead her supporters to "slink off" anywhere, but time will tell.

I haven't heard her supporters saying they won't vote Democratic "unless it is a woman candidate," either. :shrug:

I think she's been demonized for decades, and this has been a continuation. So instead of, "I don't like the way she..." or "I disagree with her about..." we get, "She's a DEMON!!" (Yes, my stepson yelled that the other evening.) It's beyond things I've heard Bush called, for cryin' out loud.

So, many of us here aren't supporting her campaign, but defend what we see as over-the-top vitriol that began with the rightwing a long time ago, and is/was rooted in her gender. Maybe we relate to it on some level. Some think she might have won with a more level playing field; others think that even with fairer treatment, she'd have lost. Who knows?

I think what's more important to focus on right now is the goal of persuading all Democrats, including her supporters, to back Obama (I'm assuming he's getting the nom), or at least vote for him. Maybe that's what your OP is intended to do. I think respectful communication -- listening to them as well as speaking to them -- is the only way.

[aquart]

250. You "defend over the top vitriol"? So true.

I don't.

[Sparkly]

298. uh-oh

'swhat I get for not proofreading.

Of course I meant defend *against* over-the-top vitriol. :blush: :hide:

[AnarchoFreeThinker]

251. kicked and recccccccccccccccccc'd

[drobert_bfm]

259. Bravo!

[SaveOurDemocracy]

262. Here ya go Nance ...

Watch the video.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5417319

[LuckyLib]

263. Yes indeed. I'm free to support or not support Hillary based on her ideas, policies

and the glimpse we get of her managerial capabilities from her campaign. Just as I would with ANY candidate.

[ananda]

272. I'm not a huge Hillary fan, but..

.. I know sexism when I see and hear it.

It's the type of hate and the charge on it.

I have issues with Hillary Clinton's voting
record and the Clintons' history concerning
NAFTA.

But I really hate the kind of stuff that
people throw out with excess emotion.

If they were not sexist, they would be totally
livid and truly outraged at McCain, who is far
worse than Clinton.

If they were not sexist, these boards would be
resounding with strong voices and activism against
McCain and all the injustice and law-breaking
going on among the corporofascist elites.. enough
to stop it and bring them to their knees.

[Kurovski]

315. That's like saying people who don't support McCain are ageist.

I don't know how much of DU you've read over the past few years, but many of its members see Sen. Clinton as a part of what you call the "corporofascist elites", now you can argue that point, but you can't twist that personal view into a charge of "sexism" without a great deal of dishonesty or willful ignorance.

I reiterate my agreement...Nance is quite correct here in her OP.

[knight_of_the_star]

273. Epic Fail

As much as this has been brought up, as of lately like say the last month or so this subject matter has come up MUCH less than it did in December and January. Too little, too late, and only gives more chance for people to start chest-beating and howling down the other side. For anyone else this would be just Fail, but Nance you've done much better and been much more spot-on and above the fray in the past so I would think you wouldn't do something to stir the shit more.

[NanceGreggs]

280. This OP was prompted ...

... by an OP that was on the Greatest Page just two days ago.

That thread started out as a rant about the language used here and elsewhere about Hillary - fair enough. The names Hill has been called here are pretty vile.

However, the OP then tied the "sexist attitude" reflected by certain words with Hillary's loss of support, and launched into a diatribe about how the entire party, as well as many progressives and liberals, are determined to not allow a woman to be elected president.

The OP went on further to state that "women will be staying home in November" if Hill is "denied" her place in the GE. It went on from there.

That is what prompted me to raise the issue. If the entire party and the world at large are all out to ensure that a woman isn't elected POTUS, what is the explanation for the fact that a woman has managed to come within inches of achieving just that?

The other obvious issue here is that women refusing to vote at all if it's not Hillary seems to be completely contrary to everything Hillary has fought for to date. The candidate herself has never caved in the face of sexism, but has stood her ground - all the way to the position she is now in.

Hillary is not going to be the nominee. She has had too many mis-steps, and her campaign has been an exercise in how not to run a campaign. Her loss will have nothing to do with her gender, and encouraging women to see this loss as such, or opt out of the voting process altogether, is counter-productive in the extreme.

[knight_of_the_star]

285. I don't disagree with that

But I do disagree with posting up something when this was even louder three months ago before the situation became more crystallized that will only serve to make things potentially worse and really doesn't add to the debate.

[dogday]

275. I think that both sexism and racism have reared their ugly head

in this race... I would be remiss not to mention both are used quite frequently...

[damonm]

276. Dammit, woman! There ya go bein' all LOGICAL again...

[Gormy Cuss]

282. And if Clinton were in the lead,

Switch your OP to one on race:

And still it continues: the OPs and reply posts insisting that Obama is losing his bid to become the Democratic nominee due to blatant racism.

According to some here, this type of black-hating runs rampant not only within the party, but among liberals and progressives everywhere.

It does not matter a whit that Obama managed – apparently despite this never-ending, oh-so-obvious racism – to come within a hair’s breadth of the nomination. Nor does it matter that when a field of more-than-capable candidates was narrowed down to two, he, the only African-American in the field, was one of the two left standing.

Perhaps the argument we are meant to accept is that the Boys in Charge simply allowed him to get where he is in order to lull nonwhite voters into a false sense of equality – or, even more dastardly, permitted Barack to get this far simply for the maniacal pleasure of pulling the rug out from under him at the last possible moment, as a means of reminding all persons of color that they should remain aware of their secondary place in society, as well as the political arena....


I doubt that anyone here would dare post a piece making similar assertions on race, but if it's just sexism, it's okay to do so. I have never been a supporter of Clinton's candidacy and haven't held her in high regard since she 'moved' to New York in order to further her political ambitions. As much as I dislike her as a politician, I am not blind to the endless sexist characterizations of her in the media and here. Obama has had some hits that were racist but nowhere near the level of the sexism directed at Clinton. When it's about race, Obama can confront it and be seen as strong. When it's sexist, if Clinton confronts it she's seen as weak.

I am also sympathetic to her female supporters who are so frustrated because of it that they don't feel like being part of the election at all if she is not the candidate. I hope that most do decide to vote for the eventual nominee rather than chance having McCain in the White House.

[SaveOurDemocracy]

289. Thank you, Gormy... well stated.

It seems there's no slur, or petty attack, that is considered too low to throw at HRC. It's been a real eye-opener for many women.

[goldcanyonaz]

293. You got that right. A real eye opener.

[delt664]

290. Nance Greggs wins again.

+1

[bagimin]

296. Well stated....

as usual.

[VotesForWomen]

304. simple question- if O was a black *woman* would he be where he is now? yeah, 'nuff said.

that's proof positive that sexism is alive and well in america, and in the democratic party. and btw, nice strawwoman about people allegedly saying that women must vote for the woman candidate. nobody said that.

[NanceGreggs]

305. If Hillary was a white male ...

... would she be where she is now?

What a ridiculous argument.

I never said that anyone here stated that women must vote for a woman candidate. I just love it when someone's response is to call me on saying something I never said - it's confirmation that they have nothing useful to say themselves.

[Black Pearl]

309. For the Hillary supporters

This is supposed to be an election for the next President. You know, the guy (or gal)who's going to be setting the agenda for the next 4 to 8 years and probably choosing the next two or three Supreme Court Justices. Wouldn't it just be real "special" (as in riding the short bus) if you gals got so wrapped up in defending your precious Hillary that you lost the right to determine your reproductive future, lost your sons to yet another war, and lost your freedoms to your own stupidity. There are things that are more important about our next President than gender.

10 Things You Should Know About McCain (but probably don’t)

1. McCain opposes a woman’s right to choose. He said, “I do not support Roe versus Wade. It should be overturned.”

2. The Children’s Defense Fund rated McCain as the worst senator in Congress for children. He voted against the children’s health care bill last year, then defended Bush’s veto of the bill.

3. According to Bloomberg News, McCain is more hawkish than Bush on Iraq, Russia and China. Conservative columnist Pat Buchanan says McCain “will make Cheney look like Gandhi.”

4. His reputation is built on his opposition to torture, but McCain voted against a bill to ban waterboarding, and then applauded President Bush for vetoing that ban.

5. John McCain voted against establishing a national holiday in honor of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Now he says his position has “evolved,” yet he’s continued to oppose key civil rights laws.

6. He’s one of the richest people in a Senate filled with millionaires. The Associated Press reports he and his wife own at least eight homes! Yet McCain says the solution to the housing crisis is for people facing foreclosure to get a “second job” and skip their vacations.

7. Many of McCain’s fellow Republican senators say he’s too reckless to be commander in chief. One Republican senator said: “The thought of his being president sends a cold chill down my spine. He’s erratic. He’s hotheaded. He loses his temper and he worries me.”

8. McCain talks a lot about taking on special interests, but his campaign manager and top advisers are actually lobbyists. The government watchdog group Public Citizen says McCain has 59 lobbyists raising money for his campaign, more than any of the other presidential candidates.

9. McCain has sought closer ties to the extreme religious right in recent years. The pastor McCain calls his “spiritual guide,” Rod Parsley, believes America’s founding mission is to destroy Islam, which he calls a “false religion.” McCain sought the political support of right-wing preacher John Hagee, who believes Hurricane Katrina was God’s punishment for gay rights and called the Catholic Church “the Antichrist” and a “false cult.”

10. He positions himself as pro-environment, but he scored a 0—yes, zero—from the League of Conservation Voters last year.

John McCain is not who the Washington press corps make him out to be. Please help get the word out.

[saltpoint]

313. Nance, there's been quite a few recs on this post and quite a few viewers

as well.

One of the strengths of good writing is that it provokes thoughtful discourse, often elevating that discourse to a more insightful level more generally useful and purposeful for a larger number of people.

In that way a reader is the chief beneficiary of good writing.

But the good writer is the one who lights the match.

Nice goin', and here's a kick for April 8th.

[Xenocrates]

314. Wow..

I've read DU for a long time, choosing to be a member of the audience rather than a member of the chorus, but this post made me want to join and offer my support for a great rant. :) Wish I had enough creds to rec.

[Black Pearl]

316. Comedian Tim Allen (Home Improvement) once said:

Women now have choices. They can be married, not married, have a job, not have a job, be married with children, unmarried with children. Men have the same choice we've always had: work, or prison.

[Political Heretic]

317. She got here through sniper fire, doging mortars and rescuing small children from assasins

...NINJA assassins! no, i am serious.