Considering the Imus debacle, maybe people should think twice now about how they refer to Hillary

[mtnsnake]

so often as a "corporate whore" on this forum. She does not deserve that and she never has. Democrats and real progressives should be able to express their vitriol towards her with a different choice of words than "whore".

[MrSlayer]

1. I disagree.

There is a big difference between saying "Hillary Clinton is a fucking whore." and "Hillary Clinton is a Corporate Whore." Corporate Whore isn't a sexist statement, it's been in use for a long, long time. Usually in the context of "These motherless fucking whores!" referring to a politician you paid off for a service who is now holding you up for more before completing said task. The concept of a Corporate Whore applied to males long before it applied to females. It's not the same and not all whores are female.

[Benhurst]

11. Thank you. I was chided yesterday for calling

Ms. Ifill a "media whore." What nonsense. She is a shill for the Republicans, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that war criminal Condoleezza Rice is one of her dearest friends.

Corporate Whore and Media Whore, both of which were applied to males long before being applied to women, should remain in our lexicon and not fall victim to radical political correctness.

If the shoe or pump fits, let them wear it, male or female.

[MrSlayer]

15. You're welcome.

There are so many other things you can whore yourself for other than sexual activity and it knows nothing of sexism, racism or anything else of that ilk. When you sell out your true beliefs for money, support and/or power you are a whore.

[AtomicKitten]

39. Can't say I agree with that rationalization.

Of course, I'm a woman and find the term offensive whether it's used spelled "whore" or "ho."

It's just one of those words that makes me cringe to hear used so casually in conversation, and that response isn't mitigated by rationalization of the context of its use.

But that's me. :shrug:

[Tom Joad]

46. a politician of either gender (or any party) can be a whore.

and way too many of them are.

[LiberalEsto]

2. Corporatist

is a far better term

[Benhurst]

14. No, I think it is weak.

According to Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, a "corporatist" is one who follows the principles, doctrine, or system of corporative organization of a political unit, as a city or state.

No, we talking "corporate whore" here, not "corporatist", and it's not principles we're talking about, but a lack thereof.

[Buzz Clik]

3. I really can't see a parallel.

Imus used an inflammatory and degrading label that slandered them for the race and their gender.

Calling Hillary -- or any other politician -- a "corporate whore" is simply a harsh dose of reality.

[MilesColtrane]

4. I see nothing wrong with the word whore.

It describes a person who sells their bodily integrity for money.
It's not gender specific, and it is useful for describing many in the world of politics and the media.

[Lerkfish]

5. I don't recall using that against her (maybe lieberman), but regardless

I think its a bit opportunistic to use this incident to threaten people against criticizing Ms. Clinton.

Its akin to claiming anyone who objects to her policies are misogynistic.

its a cheap tactic and fools no one.

[mtnsnake]

6. Leave it to you, Lerkfish, to totally distort my message

I think its a bit opportunistic to use this incident to threaten people against criticizing Ms. Clinton.

I did no such thing, but I am not surprised for one second that YOU would try to spin it that way. Pathetic.

[Lerkfish]

7. hey, I call it as I see it

:shrug:

what WAS your intent, then?

your thread title:

Considering the Imus debacle, maybe people should think twice now about how they refer to Hillary

[mtnsnake]

8. You saw wrong.

what WAS your intent, then?

Saying people should think twice about using the word "whore" is not threatening anyone, and no where did I implore people to stop criticizing Clinton. I suggested perhaps they should reconsider on their choice of words and use something else other than "whore" when they criticize her.

[Lerkfish]

9. but it IS opportunistic, as you thread title clearly shows

:shrug:

In other words, instead of addressing a particular instance of someone calling her a corporate whore, you choose this unrelated, different use of the word to say people should think twice.

I believe I still see it correctly, you're just not being honest with yourself on this one, IMHO.

[mtnsnake]

13. Great. It's opportunistic. I never said it wasn't

although you'll take that and spin it into something else for sake of wasting my time like you often try to do. There really is no need for you, Lerkfish, to try and put your own meanings into what I meant. It has never worked for you before and it won't work now, but knock yourself out trying! now run along....

[Lerkfish]

26. LOL!

whatever. I find this whole thread a bit flamebaity, but I guess that's just my spin, right?
If its just ME, why are you having the SAME PROBLEM discussing this with others in the thread?

[mtnsnake]

28. There you go again

spinning tall tales as usual.

If its just ME, why are you having the SAME PROBLEM discussing this with others in the thread?

Uhhh, maybe because I'm NOT having any problem with the others in this thread? That's because THEY are disagreeing with my OP, which is fine because they're handling it like good sports. Maybe you could attempt for once to stay on subject and try doing the same for yourself, sport. Hope that helps (snicker)

[Lerkfish]

29. you obviously have a problem with me personally

which I find amusing.

[peace13]

10. Ha!

I see this Imus thing as a message to Rush,Hannity, and Coulter. Take note 'fellows'!

[Captain Hilts]

12. Imus and his crew have called her really vulgar, anatomical names. nt

[Beelzebud]

16. I didn't realize Thought Control was a liberal trait.

[nealmhughes]

17. FTR: I have never used "corporate whore," ever in writing or speech. I prefer "corporatate collabor-

ationist/panderer" and "pay to play player," myself.

Hardworking prostitutes should not be placed in the same light as politicians.

[mmonk]

18. Not even close as a comparison

though I don't call her that. I happen to believe she does represent big money politics. If you don't believe that is the case, you are going to have to argue your point in a different way and present contrary evidence. I will hold civil discourse.

[mtnsnake]

21. Changing the subject doesn't apply.

I happen to believe she does represent big money politics. If you don't believe that is the case, you are going to have to argue your point in a different way and present contrary evidence. I will hold civil discourse.

What you're trying to talk about has nothing to do with the point I was trying to make. It is not about whether or not I think Hillary represents big money politics or not. I think you realize that, but if you don't, then it's you who needs to argue your point in a different way, not me....like maybe start your own thread about whether or not Hillary is for big money politics. I'm not debating that here.

[mmonk]

22. You made the comparison to what Imus said and people

calling Hillary a corporate whore, not me. If you don't want me to address it, don't start a thread on it.

[mtnsnake]

23. You addressed a subject that YOU wanted to talk about, NOT what the OP talked about

but keep trying to do what you do best.

If that doesn't help, then try re-reading the OP and post #21 again. If that doesn't work, then argue about it with yourself until you're blue in the face. lol

[mmonk]

27. That (OP) would presuppose that nappy headed ho and corporate

whore are one in the same in meaning and intent which would be dishonest.

[mmonk]

35. And by the way,

some days I'm way too serious for my own good. Today is one of those days. Forgive me.

[mmonk]

25. People call politicians (and also big media)

corporate whores quite a bit. It has to do with the relationships around monetary support and not about gender or sexual prostitution. That is my point and why the slur Imus did based on race and gender is not a proper correlation to the political term of corporate whore.

[snooper2]

19. She is a corporate whore......as are most all politicians...

And she is getting "paid". The extent of their whoredom is something one must look at; why I perfer Mr. Edwards or Mr. Obama.

Oh yeah, and Just Say No to plutocracy in 08'....

[BlooInBloo]

20. Nice try. It's clear that *that* usage has sufficiently diverged from the original...

... to insulate the speaker from Imus-ization.

[dionysus]

24. How about Corporate Strumpet?

[Madspirit]

32. haha...I like it!

In one of my favorite tv shows/movies...Joss Whedon's Firefly/Serenity, they call hookers, "Companions".

Is Hillary a Corporate Companion? <g>
Lee

[blm]

36. *spit take*

LOL

[Madspirit]

30. Why I object to "whore"

Well, the obvious. It's really sexist.

...and also because I have had many hooker friends in my long and peculiar life and all of them were pretty cool actually and left-leaning.

Just sayin'...
Lee

[MonkeyFunk]

31. I wish

people here would stop using the term "whore" to refer to any woman they don't like, but it's so ingrained, I expect I'll still see it for a long long time to come.

[frogcycle]

34. i use it to refer to mccain a lot n/t

[mmonk]

37. What if they use it describe a politician that is male

or a news anchor that is male (which people do). "Corporate whore" in the political sense as a description is not about gender or sexual prostitution.

[frogcycle]

33. the issue with imus is more

his savaging college kids for no reason whatsoever except his own lame attempt at being "cute" and showing how hip he is because he knows a ghetto phrase, and the impact on them of having that done over the public airwaves in their home market

calling a politician various pejoratives is vastly different. its not the words themselves - he could have used the same expression in a different context and gotten away with it.

its all about the context. imus tries to use that as his excuse; I say it's his downfall

[Tellurian]

38. DU is not the forum of decorum it used to be..

not that it couldn't happen again, but the mods would have to step up to the plate and perhaps not have so many friends at the end of it all. I don't think calling anyone a (_adj_) whore serves any purpose except personal gratification of the epithetist. I don't have a problem with not saying it because that and similar words exhibit HATE.. I don't believe in hate, hate accomplishes nothing.

[formercia]

40. Hillary should not hide behind the fact that she is a Woman.

It could be argued she was using her sex to her advantage, thus justifying the term.

[Tellurian]

41. How is Hillary hiding behind the fact she's a woman?

please elaborate-

[formercia]

42. I didn't say she was

so don't put words in my mouth. You're starting to sound like an attack hound.

[Kolesar]

43. Is this supposed to be funny? ... eom

[Tellurian]

45. what makes you think..

I need your validation to know who I am?

grow up!

[huskerlaw]

44. It is amusing that

You have picked Hillary out of all of the people we call a "corporate whore"...of which there are many, and many are male.

I suspect that's why many upthread have accused you of having a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda. If your problem really is the term "whore" and not the fact that someone has dared to call Hillary a name, then why mention Hillary at all?

As for the term itself, likening it to "nappy headed ho" is laughable. Whore = someone who sells oneself to someone or something for money. Hillary, and many other politicians, has done just that with corporations, or interest groups, or the media...so to call them "corporate/special interest/media whore" is entirely correct. And it has nothing to do with what gender they are, since it's equally applied to both males and females.

[riverdeep]

47. In this case the term refers to a sell out

rather than some sexual signifier. Like when someone says someone is being treated like a red headed stepchild. They're not coming out against red heads, or step children, but saying that person is a second class citizen. Even though both these terms originated historically in the demonization of those groups, language has moved on. Or rather, our culture has.