PDA

View Full Version : Misogyny re Clinton vs Obama


Steffica Greles
Apr 27th, 2008, 07:01 PM
The Independent

Joan Smith: Medusa, bitch, witch, mad cow, DemocRAT... Why does America hate Hillary Clinton so much?

Sunday, 27 April 2008

Hillary Clinton is a witch who eats babies. She is a modern-day Medusa who turns men to stone. She is a DemocRAT, with a rodent's body and long tail. She is a mad cow, spreading disease across the country. Hey guys, life's a bitch, so why vote for one? No, I haven't taken leave of my senses: I am simply repeating some of the most vitriolic attacks on a woman who has dared to run for the White House, prompting an outpouring of misogyny on a scale that brings to mind medieval witch-hunts. The amazing thing is not that Clinton is trailing Barack Obama, but the fact that she's doing so well.

Last weekend she won Pennsylvania, despite her campaign being outspent three-to-one. She has been written off countless times since January, when commentators gleefully – and wrongly – declared that Clinton had been defeated in the New Hampshire primary; one conservative pundit confidently said: "The witch is dead, and life is going to change." Three months later, Clinton is still in the race, but I sometimes wonder how she manages to get up every morning. I'm not a natural supporter, but the degree of vilification she has been subjected to reminds me of the pathological misogyny of the notorious witch-finders' manual, Malleus Maleficarum.

Let's start with the T-shirts, mugs and stickers at the online "Hillary vilification shop" where images of her as a rat, a mad cow and Medusa are on sale. "Hillary will eat our babies," one message proclaims. "Pillory Hillary 2008," says another, next to an image of Clinton in the stocks. Most sinister of all is "Wanna See Hillary Run? ... Throw Rocks At Her", echoing the barbaric practice of stoning women to death. Take to the airwaves in America, and more bile pours out; the right-wing talk show host Rush Limbaugh, whose show has 14.5 million listeners, has identified something he called a "testicle lockbox" as an attribute of the New York senator. Is this related, I wonder, to a vagina dentata? Perhaps that's what Clifford May, a former Republican National Committee spokesman, had in mind when he called on Clinton to define herself as "a Vaginal-American".

What are they so afraid of? "There's just something about her that feels castrating, overbearing and scary," declared MSNBC host Tucker Carlson. Scary but pathetic, says Limbaugh: "Will America want to watch a woman get older before their eyes on a daily basis?" Clinton is 60, 11 years younger than the Republican candidate John McCain, but ageing "makes men look more authoritative, accomplished and distinguished", according to Limbaugh.

McCain, to his shame, has not remained aloof from the pillorying of Clinton, failing to rebuke a female supporter in South Carolina who asked: "How do we beat the bitch?" Visibly taken aback, McCain laughed and thought for a few seconds. "That's an excellent question," he said. In the following week, the "How do we beat the bitch?" incident was viewed almost a million times on YouTube.

"This is sociopathic woman-hating," the feminist author Robin Morgan. "If it were about Jews, we would recognise it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Where is our sense of outrage – as citizens, voters, Americans?" In fact, Clinton does have people defending her, including Elton John. The singer recently opened a fundraising concert for Clinton in New York and said he was "amazed by the misogynistic attitudes of some people in this country". So are some ordinary voters, including an Obama supporter who expressed his frustration with a Facebook group entitled "Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich". He wrote on his blog: "The last time I checked, it had over 44,000 members, and at least once a week since it was started I receive a request from a Christian asking me to join this group."

The title of the group is revealing because its equivalent – "Barack Obama: Stop Running for President and Clean My Pool"– doesn't exist. It would cause outrage. So why, when racial abuse is rightly taboo, is it acceptable to abuse a woman on the grounds of her gender? Why is it all right to use words such as "witch" and "bitch" about a female politician?

Of course, it may be that racism has gone underground, and that doubts about a black presidential candidate are emerging in voting patterns. But this year's race for the White House has undeniably exposed the previously unimaginable degree of misogyny at the heart of American culture. Whoever wins in November, the 2008 election will go down in history as the occasion when lobbyists, pundits and bloggers staged a very public mugging of Hillary Clinton.

For rolling comment on the US election visit: independent.co.uk/campaign08 (http://independent.co.uk/campaign08)

Ryan
Apr 27th, 2008, 08:32 PM
Interesting article, I didn't realize there was so much anger over politics and the levels anyone would stoop to. :eek:

Henpova
Apr 27th, 2008, 09:11 PM
its just sad, if your a strong hard working man, that has done every thing they wanted to do, you are a good guy. If you a woman, that is strong hard working woman that has done every thing that you wanted to, you are a bitch.

Steffica Greles
Apr 28th, 2008, 10:52 AM
I for one definitely think that Clinton is up against the barriers of prejudice as much as, or even more so than Obama.

As I've pointed out before, women are approximately 50% of the population, blacks considerably less. Statistically, therefore, it is a much bigger travesty that there has never been a female President. And there are, of course, reasons for that, grounded in people's reactions -- both men's AND women's -- to women in power.

The stark discrepancy in the perceptions of Hillary Clinton is that on one hand she is deemed wily, a fence sitter, plays her cards close to her chest, and yet at the same time she is dubbed 'divisive', as if she has unequivocal, unbending convictions which alienate swathes of the electorate. You can't be both. That is, unless 'swathes of the electorate' have something more fundamental to hold against you.

homogenius
Apr 28th, 2008, 11:15 AM
As I said before, people are underestimating the misogyny effect and focus only on the possible racism effect toward Obama.
I think it would be good to have a woman as the President of USA (and not only for the USA, but also for the women in the world).

Philbo
Apr 28th, 2008, 11:42 AM
I think some of the hatred towards Hillary from the GOP is along the lines of misogyny etc as outlined in the article.

But criticism of Hillary by Democratic voters seems to me to be more based in legitimate concerns about how far to the centre (right) Hillary has moved over the last handful of years as well as her worrying stance on Iraq and the Iranian army being designated a terrorist organisation etc. She isnt above criticism based on fair logic and reasoning just because she is a woman.

Steffica Greles
Apr 28th, 2008, 12:07 PM
But criticism of Hillary by Democratic voters seems to me to be more based in legitimate concerns about how far to the centre (right) Hillary has moved over the last handful of years as well as her worrying stance on Iraq and the Iranian army being designated a terrorist organisation etc. She isnt above criticism based on fair logic and reasoning just because she is a woman.

True.

But then, it comes down to whether you trust her liberal credentials or you don't. I do.

She has moved to the centre-right for strategic reasons, in my opinion. As the article pointed out, considering the hatred she evokes from so many in America, it is a wonder she's even in the race at all. Her chief selling point, at the moment, is that she is more likely to pull in swing voters than Obama. That means pulling in voters who are not wholly inimical to the Republican outlook and foreign policy, but who might just plump for someone who can steward the economy in a looming recession. There are voters who are right-wing socially, and left-wing economically.

Obama is not as 'divisive' as Hillary as the mere person that he is (i.e as a male) and therefore he can stand his ground and be more persuasive from it than a wrinkled older woman.

That said, nothing Obama says convinces me. He struggled to say the word 'gay' in one rally.

Pureracket
Apr 28th, 2008, 01:02 PM
I for one definitely think that Clinton is up against the barriers of prejudice as much as, or even more so than Obama. That's not true @ all. An example is Hillary Clinton can proudly say that having a woman in the White House would bring about a favourable change. I've never heard Barack say that about being a Black man in the White House.

Hillary does have barriers, but I think that she has an advantage whenever it comes to race and gender.

Donny
Apr 28th, 2008, 01:03 PM
For every Democratic primary voter who is against her because of irrational dislike, there is one who supports her for irrational reasons. They, for whatever reason, think she=Bill, and that her presidency will= the mid and late 90's. So really, imo, it balances out.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 01:47 PM
That's not true @ all.

Really? Not at all? It's illogical and blind to deny that a good deal of vitriol that has been spewed Clinton's way is misogynistic in nature.

An example is Hillary Clinton can proudly say that having a woman in the White House would bring about a favourable change. I've never heard Barack say that about being a Black man in the White House.

But he could say that, could he not? Given that his entire campaign is based around the idea that his mere existence will bring about positive change, it would be slightly redundant of him to do so... but he could totally do it, no?

Hillary does have barriers, but I think that she has an advantage whenever it comes to race and gender.

I'm not sure that I agree, but this point is at least debatable. What you can't really deny that she's vilified in a way that Obama won't be ... or can you?

Pureracket
Apr 28th, 2008, 02:34 PM
Really? Not at all? It's illogical and blind to deny that a good deal of vitriol that has been spewed Clinton's way is misogynistic in nature.



But he could say that, could he not? Given that his entire campaign is based around the idea that his mere existence will bring about positive change, it would be slightly redundant of him to do so... but he could totally do it, no?



I'm not sure that I agree, but this point is at least debatable. What you can't really deny that she's vilified in a way that Obama won't be ... or can you?Oh, she is certainly vilified, and I'm the first to admit it. I've never liked the references to her being seen as a "witch" or "hysterical" because those are negatives that are assessed solely to women.

However, it's different for Barack's race issue. Not only, is this argument rather common sensical because of the Black male's history in the USA, but we can also look @ what has been going on specifically with his campaign:

-he is "unelectable" because he is a Black male. Sure, people say that about Hilary's gender, but it's not nearly the same

-Barack Hussein Obama is simply his name, and it points @ difference in race AND culture, especially when Baptist ministers have on their church billboards "Obama, Osama? Are they Brothers?"

-regardless of whether you believe it or not, Barack CANNOT openly attack Hillary. He can't show the anger and frustration that other candidates feel because of the "Angry, brutish, Black man" image in the US. He could never have a press conference yelling @ the top of this voice, "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton." (a la HRC).

-the governor in PA, among others, can unashamedly admit that many white Democrats won't vote for a Black nominee. This is admitting, accepting, and using racism to sway votes for HRC.

-HRC has said herself (to Gov. Richardson) that BHO is not electable.

Philbo
Apr 28th, 2008, 02:40 PM
True.

But then, it comes down to whether you trust her liberal credentials or you don't. I do.

She has moved to the centre-right for strategic reasons, in my opinion.

That said, nothing Obama says convinces me. He struggled to say the word 'gay' in one rally.

1) I dont trust them. I did about 12-18 months ago but for some reason that trust has evaporated as Ive observed her campaign. I really hope you are correct though and I would happily and gladly eat crow if Hillary becomes president and ushers in a new era of liberal tolerance and freedom.

2) Not convinced and dont 100% trust Obama either. Saw a clip of him the other day denying there is any evidence that anyone is pushing for a North American union to be created one day in the future. I basically dont trust all of Obama's ties to orgs such as the CFR....

kiwifan
Apr 28th, 2008, 03:02 PM
George W Bush is a male...

...seems to me he gets insulted quite a bit too.

mykarma
Apr 28th, 2008, 03:24 PM
Oh, she is certainly vilified, and I'm the first to admit it. I've never liked the references to her being seen as a "witch" or "hysterical" because those are negatives that are assessed solely to women.

However, it's different for Barack's race issue. Not only, is this argument rather common sensical because of the Black male's history in the USA, but we can also look @ what has been going on specifically with his campaign:

-he is "unelectable" because he is a Black male. Sure, people say that about Hilary's gender, but it's not nearly the same

-Barack Hussein Obama is simply his name, and it points @ difference in race AND culture, especially when Baptist ministers have on their church billboards "Obama, Osama? Are they Brothers?"

-regardless of whether you believe it or not, Barack CANNOT openly attack Hillary. He can't show the anger and frustration that other candidates feel because of the "Angry, brutish, Black man" image in the US. He could never have a press conference yelling @ the top of this voice, "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton." (a la HRC).

-the governor in PA, among others, can unashamedly admit that many white Democrats won't vote for a Black nominee. This is admitting, accepting, and using racism to sway votes for HRC.

-HRC has said herself (to Gov. Richardson) that BHO is not electable.
Don't even waste your time with this topic. You know that they know more about being black and facing racism on a daily basis than you do.

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 03:45 PM
I think women are equally as oppressed, just in a different way.

Women are assigned roles by nature, while as blacks are assigned roles by discrimination.
Women have to bear children, have to have a male to bear children and have to raise the child.
Thats not what "the man" says, thats what God/Darwin/whatever says.

So I think thats a fundamental difference and for that reason there stems a different kind of discrimination. You can say "bitch get in the kitchen" because, well, they're supposed to - kinda.

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 03:48 PM
1) I dont trust them. I did about 12-18 months ago but for some reason that trust has evaporated as Ive observed her campaign. I really hope you are correct though and I would happily and gladly eat crow if Hillary becomes president and ushers in a new era of liberal tolerance and freedom.

2) Not convinced and dont 100% trust Obama either. Saw a clip of him the other day denying there is any evidence that anyone is pushing for a North American union to be created one day in the future. I basically dont trust all of Obama's ties to orgs such as the CFR....
Hillary is definitely a liberal. Shes just a pragmatic liberal.

She learned from '93.

I think that of the two, shes the more likely to use the "kitchen sink" approach to get shit done. I'm not a Dem, but I'm incredibly impressed by her tenacity and refusal to lay down. If she takes that into the White House, then I think you'll see a strong push for liberal agendas the second she unpacks her bags.

Philbo
Apr 28th, 2008, 03:49 PM
Hillary is definitely a liberal. Shes just a pragmatic liberal.

She learned from '93.

I think that of the two, shes the more likely to use the "kitchen sink" approach to get shit done. I'm not a Dem, but I'm incredibly impressed by her tenacity and refusal to lay down. If she takes that into the White House, then I think you'll see a strong push for liberal agendas the second she unpacks her bags.

Sounds great to me. Goooo Hillary lol!

mykarma
Apr 28th, 2008, 04:16 PM
Hillary is definitely a liberal. Shes just a pragmatic liberal.

She learned from '93.

I think that of the two, shes the more likely to use the "kitchen sink" approach to get shit done. I'm not a Dem, but I'm incredibly impressed by her tenacity and refusal to lay down. If she takes that into the White House, then I think you'll see a strong push for liberal agendas the second she unpacks her bags.
I don't think that any of the candidates that are running will be able to bully their agendas the way Bush has been able to do. There is also to much animosity towards Hillary by conservatives and I think they'll fight her all the way.

Apoleb
Apr 28th, 2008, 04:19 PM
I think women are equally as oppressed, just in a different way.

Women are assigned roles by nature, while as blacks are assigned roles by discrimination.
Women have to bear children, have to have a male to bear children and have to raise the child.
Thats not what "the man" says, thats what God/Darwin/whatever says.

So I think thats a fundamental difference and for that reason there stems a different kind of discrimination. You can say "bitch get in the kitchen" because, well, they're supposed to - kinda.

WTF? And this is how you try to defend women's rights?

mykarma
Apr 28th, 2008, 04:24 PM
WTF? And this is how you try to defend women's rights?
:lol:

LoveFifteen
Apr 28th, 2008, 04:34 PM
"Bitch, get in the kitchen?" :o

Never insult someone who prepares your food. :devil:

mykarma
Apr 28th, 2008, 04:35 PM
"Bitch, get in the kitchen?" :o

Never insult someone who prepares your food. :devil:
You got that right, you don't know what you'll find in your food.

Steffica Greles
Apr 28th, 2008, 05:47 PM
Women are assigned roles by nature, while as blacks are assigned roles by discrimination.
Women have to bear children, have to have a male to bear children and have to raise the child.
Thats not what "the man" says,thats what God/Darwin/whatever says.

So I think thats a fundamental difference and for that reason there stems a different kind of discrimination. You can say "bitch get in the kitchen" because, well, they're supposed to - kinda.

Hence the article was written

:rolleyes:

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:01 PM
What I meant was that women are ascribed their role by nature.

Don't take it offensive, but its just true. And for that reason, people can fall back on that if they're called sexist. Because regardless of how you spin it, women's role is to bear children (according to nature) which can only be accomplished by having submissive sex with a man. Once the child is born, the women has to give it milk (again this is what was originally intended. modern technology has changed this a bit) from its breast.

So the "get in the kitchen" comment, however sexist, does have basis to it.

I'm not saying its right, I'm just saying its not arbitrary like some claims of black inferiority.

Thats all. When Hillary said her "baking cookies" comment, it was both offensive and lauded. She rejected the role given to her by her gender, but at the same time she risked offending those who embrace it.

Because being in the kitchen and being the homemaker and head of moral authority in the household is NOT a bad thing. Being a mother/homemaker is in my opinion the hardest and most important job there is. Stay at home moms aren't given enough credit for that

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:01 PM
Hillary has worked with Lindsay Graham extensively in the senate, and he lead the charge to get her husband impeached.

Somehow I think they'll work it out.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:03 PM
Oh, she is certainly vilified, and I'm the first to admit it. I've never liked the references to her being seen as a "witch" or "hysterical" because those are negatives that are assessed solely to women.

We are in agreement here. I misread your response to the original poster as disagreeing with this premise, when you were clearly just taking issue with that poster's assertion that "Clinton is up against the barriers of prejudice as much as, or even more so than Obama." My bad.

However, it's different for Barack's race issue.

I don't disagree.

-he is "unelectable" because he is a Black male. Sure, people say that about Hilary's gender, but it's not nearly the same

Why isn't it? Some people consider women unelectable. Some consider black men unelectable. They're both prejudiced for different reasons, but how is it "not nearly the same"?

-Barack Hussein Obama is simply his name, and it points @ difference in race AND culture, especially when Baptist ministers have on their church billboards "Obama, Osama? Are they Brothers?"

-regardless of whether you believe it or not, Barack CANNOT openly attack Hillary. He can't show the anger and frustration that other candidates feel because of the "Angry, brutish, Black man" image in the US. He could never have a press conference yelling @ the top of this voice, "Shame on you, Hillary Clinton." (a la HRC).

Why wouldn't I believe it? I find it difficult to carry on discourse with people who already have prejudged what I may or may not believe :)

Now, regardless of whether you believe it or not, I have rubbed my 5 brain cells together and determined that Obama putting on a press conference of that nature would probably be politic suicide. For a number of reasons. The "Angry, brutish, Black man" stereotype being one of them.

-the governor in PA, among others, can unashamedly admit that many white Democrats won't vote for a Black nominee. This is admitting, accepting, and using racism to sway votes for HRC.

-HRC has said herself (to Gov. Richardson) that BHO is not electable.

I disagree with Clinton here. As for the first part of this quote, it's sort of lose-lose, no? It's a pity that it's true that many white Democrats wouldn't vote for a Black nominee. By admitting this, one can be seen as "using racism to sway votes for Clinton". The alternative is that this problem isn't acknowledged or discussed, in which case a number of negative adjectives would be thrown at those in question. Not that I'm naive enough to deny that "using racism to sway votes for Clinton" hasn't occurred. I'm just not naive enough to not also realize that sexism may be used to drum up votes for Obama. :)

Apoleb
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:05 PM
Can you please do us all a favor and shut up? I think we've already read enough bullshit. At least I did.

'natural role of women is to stay in the kitchen and be a homemaker' ? :lol: Next you'll tell us women have a lower center of gravity so that they can pick up groceries better.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:07 PM
Don't even waste your time with this topic. You know that they know more about being black and facing racism on a daily basis than you do.

And here we have the least valuable post of the thread. Thank you for offering nothing to the discussion.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:09 PM
blah blah blah...

So the "get in the kitchen" comment, however sexist, does have basis to it.

... blah blah blah ...

I stand corrected. This post is even more useless. But at least it's unintentionally hilarious rather than mind numbingly stupid. For that, it wins the close battle of Which Post Sucked Slightly Less.

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:12 PM
Can you please do us all a favor and shut up? I think we've already read enough bullshit. At least I did.

'natural role of women is to stay in the kitchen and be a homemaker' ? :lol: Next you'll tell us women have a lower center of gravity so that they can pick up groceries better.
How is it bullshit?

Humans are animals. Animals have to procreate to continue the lineage. The female (of all species) give birth to children and their bodies are designed to take care of the children (breast milk).

I'm not saying that they have to "stay in the kitchen," I'm just saying that their natural role - as all female mamalia - is to rear and take care of children. Thats not sexist, its biology. And there isn't anything wrong with that! I have no clue why women find being a mother offensive. Obviously they can do more than that, but that shouldn't be looked down upon at all.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:16 PM
... blah blah blah ... I have no clue why women find being a mother offensive... blah blah blah ...

I've never met a woman who finds their ability to bear children offensive. This may well be the poorest deduction of all time (if we ignore mykarma, that is). I believe that the issue here is with your amazing use of evolutionary psychology to justify sexist rhetoric.

Thank you for being funny.

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:18 PM
I stand corrected. This post is even more useless. But at least it's unintentionally hilarious rather than mind numbingly stupid. For that, it wins the close battle of Which Post Sucked Slightly Less.
Let me put it this way. If someone said to a black person, go back to the fields that has one level of racism. "Being in the fields" is a result of racism, so by telling someone to go to the fields is basically saying that to go back to relegation as inferior.

If someone said to a woman, go back to the kitchen, it has a different sense of sexism. Being in the kitchen - i.e. being a homemaker - is not a result of sexism. Its a result of being a homemaker, which isn't a bad thing at all. Its just saying that women can only be in the kitchen is sexist.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to be an asshole here, its just the connotation sounds bad.

CJ07
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:20 PM
I've never met a woman who finds their ability to bear children offensive. This may well be the poorest deduction of all time (if we ignore mykarma, that is). I believe that the issue here is with your amazing use of evolutionary psychology to justify sexist rhetoric.

Thank you for being funny.
Women don't find the ability to bear children offensive, its the idea that they should be bearing children offensive. Thats another topic though.

I'm not justifying the sexist comment, I'm just saying its not on the same level as a racist comment.

Apoleb
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:22 PM
How is it bullshit?

Humans are animals. Animals have to procreate to continue the lineage. The female (of all species) give birth to children and their bodies are designed to take care of the children (breast milk).

I'm not saying that they have to "stay in the kitchen," I'm just saying that their natural role - as all female mamalia - is to rear and take care of children. Thats not sexist, its biology. And there isn't anything wrong with that! I have no clue why women find being a mother offensive. Obviously they can do more than that, but that shouldn't be looked down upon at all.

You're desperately going on tangents to evade the retarded point that you've made: women are designed for cooking and homemaking, and it's somehow acceptable to socially command that role to them. Women baring children and breastfeeding (which is pretty much their 'natural role') has little to do with them staying in the kitchen and cleaning the house. Obviously there's nothing wrong with a woman chosing to devote her life as a mother (good try trying to spin this discussion as an insult to motherhood), but that's besides the point.

Anyways, probably a good way to stop reading your bs is to put you on ignore.

Apoleb
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:27 PM
Being in the kitchen - i.e. being a homemaker - is not a result of sexism. Its a result of being a homemaker

:haha: :haha: :haha:

Being a homemaker is the result of being... a homemaker. Really? Funny shit. I guess you're becoming entertaining now.

homogenius
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:27 PM
If someone said to a woman, go back to the kitchen, it has a different sense of sexism. Being in the kitchen - i.e. being a homemaker - is not a result of sexism. Its a result of being a homemaker, which isn't a bad thing at all. Its just saying that women can only be in the kitchen is sexist.



Saying to a woman who dare to think she has a chance of being President "go back to the kitchen", it indeed implies that "she can only be in the kitchen".It's like saying "it's your place so just stay here and be quiet".It's sexist, no matter how you try to spin it.

mykarma
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:33 PM
I've never met a woman who finds their ability to bear children offensive. This may well be the poorest deduction of all time (if we ignore mykarma, that is). I believe that the issue here is with your amazing use of evolutionary psychology to justify sexist rhetoric.

Thank you for being funny.
According to you the only post that's any good is yours. :)

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:39 PM
Women don't find the ability to bear children offensive, its the idea that they should be bearing children offensive. Thats another topic though.

The idea that women should be bearing children is offensive.

Shouldn't you be out clubbing me a bear or something?(I presume you're a man based on how you speak about women as if they're the opposite sex; if you're actually a woman, then I apologize and demand that you go have submissive sex and fulfill your evolutionary purpose instead).

I'm not justifying the sexist comment, I'm just saying its not on the same level as a racist comment.

And I find your use (abuse) of evolutionary psychology to support the assertion that racism is a greater offense than sexist absurd.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:45 PM
According to you the only post that's any good is yours. :)

I found your post stupid. More than just adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, it screamed unfounded prejudice and sought to end discourse on a matter which you clearly have no business discussing. Naturally it follows that the accusation that I only enjoy my own posts must be true. The idea that I find intelligent and funny posts to be intelligent and funny, but found yours to be mind numbingly stupid, is clearly too absurd to consider.

Crazy Canuck
Apr 28th, 2008, 06:51 PM
Let me put it this way. If someone said to a black person, go back to the fields that has one level of racism. "Being in the fields" is a result of racism, so by telling someone to go to the fields is basically saying that to go back to relegation as inferior.

If someone said to a woman, go back to the kitchen, it has a different sense of sexism. Being in the kitchen - i.e. being a homemaker - is not a result of sexism. Its a result of being a homemaker, which isn't a bad thing at all. Its just saying that women can only be in the kitchen is sexist.

Does that make sense? I'm not trying to be an asshole here, its just the connotation sounds bad.

I understand what you're trying to say. I don't think you're being an asshole. I just think that you're wrong. I think that the way you're using evolutionary psychology to support your point of view is a good illustration of why there has been some backlash against that particular field of psychology. If you support the theory of evolution itself, then it's illogical to refute the general ideas of evolutionary psychology; that doesn't mean that evolutionary psychology itself isn't often used to draw illogical conclusions.

Expat
Apr 28th, 2008, 07:12 PM
How is it bullshit?

Humans are animals. Animals have to procreate to continue the lineage. The female (of all species) give birth to children and their bodies are designed to take care of the children (breast milk).

I'm not saying that they have to "stay in the kitchen," I'm just saying that their natural role - as all female mamalia - is to rear and take care of children. Thats not sexist, its biology. And there isn't anything wrong with that! I have no clue why women find being a mother offensive. Obviously they can do more than that, but that shouldn't be looked down upon at all.
WTF

mykarma
Apr 28th, 2008, 07:20 PM
I found your post stupid. More than just adding absolutely nothing to the discussion, it screamed unfounded prejudice and sought to end discourse on a matter which you clearly have no business discussing. Naturally it follows that the accusation that I only enjoy my own posts must be true. The idea that I find intelligent and funny posts to be intelligent and funny, but found yours to be mind numbingly stupid, is clearly too absurd to consider.
Listen, my response was not specifically to or about you, it was to pureracket who I happen to have a relationship with. Calm down, it's really not all that serious.

drake3781
Apr 28th, 2008, 07:58 PM
Only time for a quick comment: I have found this to be true for so long.

I have found my brother, and a guy who was doing some work around my house, both of whom listen to "talk radio", parroting some of these comments.

I have seen women being quoted on the news nit-picking at some supposed ways that Hillary doesn't measure up to their standards of the way a woman should be. (Latest was: she has not handled things in her personal life as I would have done so; therefore I cannot support her.) Particularly noticeable to me because I have seen and heard these types of behavior from women, as a woman myself, since I can remember.

I know there will be heated debate here about sexism vs. racism, and I won't get into that as it gets so ugly here, and one side will not admit that it can also be racist. But suffice to say that the sexism is very strong, very ingrained, and very ugly. And it does occur by both men and women, toward women.

Pureracket
Apr 28th, 2008, 08:11 PM
Only time for a quick comment: I have found this to be true for so long.

I have found my brother, and a guy who was doing some work around my house, both of whom listen to "talk radio", parroting some of these comments.

I have seen women being quoted on the news nit-picking at some supposed ways that Hillary doesn't measure up to their standards of the way a woman should be. (Latest was: she has not handled things in her personal life as I would have done so; therefore I cannot support her.) Particularly noticeable to me because I have seen and heard these types of behavior from women, as a woman myself, since I can remember.

I know there will be heated debate here about sexism vs. racism, and I won't get into that as it gets so ugly here, and one side will not admit that it can also be racist. But suffice to say that the sexism is very strong, very ingrained, and very ugly. And it does occur by both men and women, toward women.You say how ugly it gets here, yet you've managed to throw your hat in the ring anyway when it comes to passive aggressive remarks.

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:10 AM
"Being in the fields" is a result of racism, so by telling someone to go to the fields is basically saying that to go back to relegation as inferior...If someone said to a woman, go back to the kitchen, it has a different sense of sexism. Being in the kitchen - i.e. being a homemaker - is not a result of sexism. Its a result of being a homemaker, which isn't a bad thing at all. Its just saying that women can only be in the kitchen is sexist.
Flagrantly flawed logic.

Being in the fields might have been a result of discrimination. But so too was women's consignment to a life of domestic servitude - i.e being in the kitchen. How do you manage to overlook that?

Being a homemaker is not a bad thing. But then, you might argue that nor is being a rural field worker. The point is that in neither example did the subjects have a great deal of choice, if any.

Telling a woman to 'go back to the kitchen' refers to her predecessors' (or you might even argue, contemporaries') enslavement just the same as 'go back to the fields' to an African American. The examples might be different in the sense that women were not enslaved by the same definition as African Americans, but the connotations are nonetheless obvious.

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 10:23 AM
Only time for a quick comment: I have found this to be true for so long.

I have found my brother, and a guy who was doing some work around my house, both of whom listen to "talk radio", parroting some of these comments.

I have seen women being quoted on the news nit-picking at some supposed ways that Hillary doesn't measure up to their standards of the way a woman should be. (Latest was: she has not handled things in her personal life as I would have done so; therefore I cannot support her.) Particularly noticeable to me because I have seen and heard these types of behavior from women, as a woman myself, since I can remember.

I know there will be heated debate here about sexism vs. racism, and I won't get into that as it gets so ugly here, and one side will not admit that it can also be racist. But suffice to say that the sexism is very strong, very ingrained, and very ugly. And it does occur by both men and women, toward women.

Oh absolutely. I've always said that some of the worst misogynists are women - it's been the case throughout history. Biological sex is actually a red herring here: it's 'masculinity' (as we across most cultures broadly know it, hence the inverted commas) vs 'femininity'.

Most women take on 'feminine traits' according to their socialisation, and a high percentage of men assume 'masculine' characteristics. Women are the net losers from the patriarchal system because masculinity is more forceful and aggressive. But some women use 'masculine' characteristics to bully men with more 'feminine' characteristics, for example. And a lot of men, as feminists often overlook, are subjugated by other men with more extreme 'masculine' characteristics.

Some of the worst homophobes are often gay people - we won't go into that.

And some of the worst racists are black people (and I'm referring to racism against their own 'race'). As just one example, I can recall a time when a taxi driver asked where I lived. It told him Moss Side, which tends to be an Afro-Caribbean area, high in crime. He was presumably of Afro-Caribbean heritage, judging by his appearance. He said I was 'too good' to live in that area. The subtext, I was in no doubt, was that I was white, and he was associating his own kind with crime by their skin colour and culture.

Philbo
Apr 29th, 2008, 03:16 PM
Flagrantly flawed logic.

Being in the fields might have been a result of racism. But so too was women's consignment to a life of domestic servitude - i.e being in the kitchen. How do you manage to overlook that?

Being a homemaker is not a bad thing. But then, you might argue that nor is being a rural field worker. The point is that in neither example did the subjects have a great deal of choice, if any.

Telling a woman to 'go back to the kitchen' refers to her predecessors' (or you might even argue, contemporaries') enslavement just the same as 'go back to the fields' to an African American. The examples might be different in the sense that women were not enslaved by the same definition as African Americans, but the connotations are nonetheless obvious.

I think Cj07 must well and truley regret that post by now. About half a dozen posters have gone to town on it to the point where CJ does look terribly stupid for thinking along those lines...

Andrew Laeddis
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:06 PM
Has it occurred to people that Hillary's own actions and words are reason enough for people dislike her? I liked Hillary when she was leading in the election (even though I support Obama). I wouldve been fine had she won. Once Obama took over the lead my dislike for Hillary began, not because of misogynistic views but because of her actions. Im now at the point where every time I see her on tv flashing that fake smile I literally have to keep myself from vomiting. And Im still trying to resist the urge to vote McCain if Hillary gets the Dem. Nomination. (the fact that McCain)voted against MLK day should help with that)

Expat
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:12 PM
Has it occurred to people that Hillary's own actions and words are reason enough for people dislike her? I liked Hillary when she was leading in the election (even though I support Obama). I wouldve been fine had she won. Once Obama took over the lead my dislike for Hillary began, not because of misogynistic views but because of her actions. Im now at the point where every time I see her on tv flashing that fake smile I literally have to keep myself from vomiting. And Im still trying to resist the urge to vote McCain if Hillary gets the Dem. Nomination. (the fact that McCain)voted against MLK day should help with that)
while thats a factor but how many people can get away with saying that hillary is a bitch vis a vis lets say obama is some racist term

olbermann said something to the effect of beating hillary and he got away with it

harloo
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:40 PM
Has it occurred to people that Hillary's own actions and words are reason enough for people dislike her? I liked Hillary when she was leading in the election (even though I support Obama). I wouldve been fine had she won. Once Obama took over the lead my dislike for Hillary began, not because of misogynistic views but because of her actions. Im now at the point where every time I see her on tv flashing that fake smile I literally have to keep myself from vomiting. And Im still trying to resist the urge to vote McCain if Hillary gets the Dem. Nomination. (the fact that McCain)voted against MLK day should help with that)

:worship::worship::worship: I think misogyny is being used as a scapegoat to neglect personal responsibility where Hilary's concerned. Apparently, they'll always be men/women who would never vote for a woman but most of the negativity Hilary encounters is due to her actions.

I never had a problem with Hilary until she started losing this race. As a matter of fact, when my friends talked about her for some reason I went into defense mode and wonder why they disliked her so much? It was only until this campaign progressed that I saw Hilary's dark side.

I no longer saw a woman on a mission to win the Presidency and represent the people but an opportunist who would say anything to win. It didn't matter about the party or getting the White House out the hands of the GOP. Instead it was about POWER and winning at all costs. Maybe I could understand this type of approach with the GOP, but your own party member? The sad part about it is that she'll eventually end up doing more damage to the democratic party in the end. If this is the only way she can win the nomination then she can forget about the general election.:)

Ellery
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:43 PM
Misogyny is, sadly, very present :o Cafferty, Olbermann, Mathews :tape: The list goes on. Didin´t Matthews call male Hillary supporters eunuchs or something? :haha: Dumbass.

Philbo
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:48 PM
:worship::worship::worship: I think misogyny is being used as a scapegoat to neglect personal responsibility where Hilary's concerned. Apparently, they'll always be men/women who would never vote for a woman but most of the negativity Hilary encounters is due to her actions.

I never had a problem with Hilary until she started losing this race. As a matter of fact, when my friends talked about her for some reason I went into defense mode and wonder why they disliked her so much? It was only until this campaign progressed that I saw Hilary's dark side.

I no longer saw a woman on a mission to win the Presidency and represent the people but an opportunist who would say anything to win. It didn't matter about the party or getting the White House out the hands of the GOP. Instead it was about POWER and winning at all costs. Maybe I could understand this type of approach with the GOP, but your own party member? The sad part about it is that she'll eventually end up doing more damage to the democratic party in the end. If this is the only way she can win the nomination then she can forget about the general election.:)

That pretty much sems it up for me as well...

Althought lately Ive also found myself kinda admiring Hillary for the mere fact she has survived this long. I guess it comes down to how much an individual is willing to set aside all in the name of winning etc.

One poster on here was defending her move to the centre (right) over the past few years as simply being tactical - something necessary in order for her to win. I just dont know if I like that kind of politician.. Id prefer someone like Ron Paul who may sound crazy half the time but at least he believes genuinely in what he says..

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:49 PM
The sad part about it is that she'll eventually end up doing more damage to the democratic party in the end. If this is the only way she can win the nomination then she can forget about the general election.:)
Well, that is one theory - that she won't mobilise black voters and younger voters who were turned off by the way she discredited Obama. Maybe so.

But there's another theory, which I think Hillary Clinton has reckoned on ever since she lost a series of states by big margins: she believes that if she can scrape through this contest at the very end, after so many times being written off and on the back foot, the momentum having seemed to be going inexorably against her, under pressure to quit, then she will be in a much better position to sell herself to Americans as a woman who has the ability to swing things her way in the White House, and the stamina and doggedness to bring about change.

The recent polls are showing that she has a better chance against McCain than Obama.

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 04:57 PM
That pretty much sems it up for me as well...

Althought lately Ive also found myself kinda admiring Hillary for the mere fact she has survived this long. I guess it comes down to how much an individual is willing to set aside all in the name of winning etc.

One poster on here was defending her move to the centre (right) over the past few years as simply being tactical - something necessary in order for her to win. I just dont know if I like that kind of politician.. Id prefer someone like Ron Paul who may sound crazy half the time but at least he believes genuinely in what he says..

I think you're being too harsh on her. What has she done that's SO terrible?

She's not ancient, but at 61 years of age, it is unlikely that Hillary will get another chance as good as this. Obama, at 46, might have several more.

She doesn't have Obama's sexy, trendy, I-have-a-six-pack appeal. If she wants the candidacy, she has to show she REALLY wants it. And that is what she has done.

As to strategic positioning in politics, I think Hillary has strong enough left-wing credentials to suggest that her moves are only tactical. I'd be more worried if Obama, just out of high school, was doing it - he has very little history. That said, he couldn't say the word 'gay' the other day, because he was worried it offended people!!! I'm not sure I trust that gay rights mean a great deal to him, as I know that they do to Clinton.

Stategic positioning is a reality in politics if you want a chance to make a difference later on. She could have taken Ralph Nader's approach?

Philbo
Apr 29th, 2008, 05:30 PM
I think you're being too harsh on her. What has she done that's SO terrible?

She's not ancient, but at 61 years of age, it is unlikely that Hillary will get another chance as good as this. Obama, at 46, might have several more.

She doesn't have Obama's sexy, trendy, I-have-a-six-pack appeal. If she wants the candidacy, she has to show she REALLY wants it. And that is what she has done.

As to strategic positioning in politics, I think Hillary has strong enough left-wing credentials to suggest that her moves are only tactical. I'd be more worried if Obama, just out of high school, was doing it - he has very little history. That said, he couldn't say the word 'gay' the other day, because he was worried it offended people!!! I'm not sure I trust that gay rights mean a great deal to him, as I know that they do to Clinton.

Stategic positioning is a reality in politics if you want a chance to make a difference later on. She could have taken Ralph Nader's approach?

Steffica - When I read your impassioned defenses of Hillary, it does make me think i MIGHT be too harsh on her. But then I read an Obama fans post and im back to my original position.

Ive just spent the last 8 years being totally critical of the Bush/Rove election tactic of scare the people into voting for you. Stress threat after threat after threat, raise the terror alert, scare the voters about this, scare the voters about that.. etc etc... and as Hillary has started to lose, I feel like her tactics have come str8 out of the Karl Rove Politics of Fear booklet. And if Im consistent, and I hated Bush doing that, then I also hate Hillary doing it.

The one line comment about McCain having experience and Obama only having a 'speech from 2002' or whatever went to far - she sounded as if she felt McCain would be a better president than Obama- not good.

Im also extremely anti-war and I dont really believe Hillary does want the troops out (Im not convinced about this with Obama either) - Ron Paul is the best candidate on Iraq. However Hillary voting to label the Iranian army a terrorist organisation went to far for my comfort levels in terms of beating the war drum against Iran - and NO MATTER WHAT THEY TELL ME, I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOUR OF A US INVASION OF IRAN!

The world just doesnt need more war.

égalité
Apr 29th, 2008, 06:34 PM
George W Bush is a male...

...seems to me he gets insulted quite a bit too.

Not because of his gender :weirdo:

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 06:45 PM
Ive just spent the last 8 years being totally critical of the Bush/Rove election tactic of scare the people into voting for you. Stress threat after threat after threat, raise the terror alert, scare the voters about this, scare the voters about that.. etc etc... and as Hillary has started to lose, I feel like her tactics have come str8 out of the Karl Rove Politics of Fear booklet. And if Im consistent, and I hated Bush doing that, then I also hate Hillary doing it.
I was going to say that you don't have to be consistent: you hate the Republicans, and you don't hate the Democrats. But that would be a tawdry approach to advise, especially to one so honourable :angel:

I just think that scaring people into voting for you is sometimes fair - if the substance of the scaremongering is true. Nobody scaremongered effectively against Hitler. I think, and I believe Hillary thinks, that there is a grave danger that America will elect somebody who, like Tony Blair in 1997, is young, full of rhetoric, relatively handsome, and has NO idea how to implement his policies. Now that *is* scary, after all these years of the Republicans. I think, as wife of a former President who failed in many respects to implement his agenda, Clinton knows more about political intrigue and the obstacles she has to circumvent. Life experience, aside from political experience, also counts for a lot. In those respects, perhaps her wilier tactics are auspicious for a successful Presidency.

So there's nothing wrong with scaremongering. Sometimes. Politics can be a dirty business so long as it has an honourable end. I'd rather it be that than 'clean' with less commendable objectives. I am personally more suspicious when polticians are polite to one another!

As we know, it's a serious business.

The one line comment about McCain having experience and Obama only having a 'speech from 2002' or whatever went to far - she sounded as if she felt McCain would be a better president than Obama- not good.
Poor phrasing on her part, perhaps. We both know that what she meant is that McCain is experienced and Obama will look like a school boy, in very short shorts. She wants the Democrats to win, not be humiliated.
Im also extremely anti-war and I dont really believe Hillary does want the troops out (Im not convinced about this with Obama either) - Ron Paul is the best candidate on Iraq. However Hillary voting to label the Iranian army a terrorist organisation went to far for my comfort levels in terms of beating the war drum against Iran - and NO MATTER WHAT THEY TELL ME, I WILL NOT BE IN FAVOUR OF A US INVASION OF IRAN!
The world just doesnt need more war.
She said she would 'obliterate' Iran if they attacked Israel. First of all, 'obliterate' might suggest machismo, but it is also ambiguous enough. Obliterate militarily? She never said that, as far as I'm aware (I haven't followed that thread that closely).

She said she'd obliterate Iran if it attacked Israel so that swing voters, who favour Bush's foreign policy but are worried about his economic policy, and might welcome some government assistance and less corporate tax cuts, might actually feel confident to vote for her.

But one other thing: are you absolutely sure that you would not favour military action if Iran attacked Israel?

I think the Iraq war was a disaster because it made Israel more likely to be attacked if America and Britain were, as it has turned out, preoccupied and stretched by other conflicts. And even if they had not been, and the war had been a swift success, had Iraq been the main threat to Israel? And would there have been the will for yet another war in the Middle East had the Iraq war been a success? I think that's doubtful.

But nevertheless, the impact an Iranian attack on Israel would have on the West, and the message it would send out if no assistance was forthcoming, would surely leave all of us in a more precarious international situation.

RVD
Apr 29th, 2008, 09:25 PM
:worship::worship::worship: I think misogyny is being used as a scapegoat to neglect personal responsibility where Hilary's concerned. Apparently, they'll always be men/women who would never vote for a woman but most of the negativity Hilary encounters is due to her actions.

I never had a problem with Hilary until she started losing this race. As a matter of fact, when my friends talked about her for some reason I went into defense mode and wonder why they disliked her so much? It was only until this campaign progressed that I saw Hilary's dark side.

I no longer saw a woman on a mission to win the Presidency and represent the people but an opportunist who would say anything to win. It didn't matter about the party or getting the White House out the hands of the GOP. Instead it was about POWER and winning at all costs. Maybe I could understand this type of approach with the GOP, but your own party member? The sad part about it is that she'll eventually end up doing more damage to the democratic party in the end. If this is the only way she can win the nomination then she can forget about the general election.:)Finally, some reasonable logic that hits home. Thank you! harloo. :worship:

I won't even comment on the sexism vs. racism question, since the differences are so fundamental. :rolleyes: I’m surprised that it’s even used to make a point based on that asinine article.

Seems to me that this purposely (emotionally-based) inflammatory article attempts to generate the exact same level of fear and divisiveness used during both Bush Presidential runs. All one need do is substitute, ‘homosexual’ (as was used for Bush's hateful and fear-generated platform) with 'woman'.

It amazes me that some people fall for the same crap over and over again.

What a useless article.

Steffica Greles
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:17 PM
I won't even comment on the sexism vs. racism question, since the differences are so fundamental. :rolleyes: I’m surprised that it’s even used to make a point based on that asinine article.

Seems to me that this purposely (emotionally-based) inflammatory article attempts to generate the exact same level of fear and divisiveness used during both Bush Presidential runs. All one need do is substitute, ‘homosexual’ (as was used for Bush's hateful and fear-generated platform) with 'woman'.

It amazes me that some people fall for the same crap over and over again.

What a useless article.

Umm, but I thought that the article was lamenting the inflammatory language used against Hillary Clinton? :confused: I think you got a bit confused there.

Donny
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:25 PM
Lol @ this discussion.

Women make up SIXTY PERCENT of Democratic primary voters. SIXTY PERCENT.

Just imagine, for one second, if a black man running to be, say, mayor of Baltimore, loses, and decides to blame it on racism. Do you know how hilarious that'd be? This is the same type of situation.

In The Zone
Apr 29th, 2008, 11:51 PM
Lol @ this discussion.

Women make up SIXTY PERCENT of Democratic primary voters. SIXTY PERCENT.

Just imagine, for one second, if a black man running to be, say, mayor of Baltimore, loses, and decides to blame it on racism. Do you know how hilarious that'd be? This is the same type of situation.

And how many of those women are black? And women can be sexist towards women ... not believing in a woman to be President.

Donny
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:01 AM
And how many of those women are black?

So you admit that racism is more prevalent than sexism? That's where this argument leads.

And women can be sexist towards women ... not believing in a woman to be President.

Yet evidence doesn't show that to be the case, does it? Hillary still has a majority of the woman vote. Also, older women, the women who'd logically be most "sexist" as you claim, are Hillary's strongest group.

Obama does best among college educated, younger women. What you want me to believe is that 30 something women with college degrees are somehow more sexist than high school educated 60 yr old housewives.

StarDuvallGrant
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:18 AM
:worship::worship::worship: I think misogyny is being used as a scapegoat to neglect personal responsibility where Hilary's concerned. Apparently, they'll always be men/women who would never vote for a woman but most of the negativity Hilary encounters is due to her actions.

This attempt to make her a victim and hero at the same time. Hillary's actions, her words, her attitude and personality have garnered the reaction - this within the Democratic base. She's responsible for that, not her gender.

I never had a problem with Hilary until she started losing this race. As a matter of fact, when my friends talked about her for some reason I went into defense mode and wonder why they disliked her so much? It was only until this campaign progressed that I saw Hilary's dark side. I wish this leadership she touts would have shown up in 2004 - many preferred Hillary and were fine with that choice as a Democratic nominee. Many found a better choice in Obama, Edwards, etc. Hillary reverting to negative qualities of her race and shedding her gender didn't help.

I no longer saw a woman on a mission to win the Presidency and represent the people but an opportunist who would say anything to win. It didn't matter about the party or getting the White House out the hands of the GOP. Instead it was about POWER and winning at all costs. Maybe I could understand this type of approach with the GOP, but your own party member? The sad part about it is that she'll eventually end up doing more damage to the democratic party in the end. If this is the only way she can win the nomination then she can forget about the general election.:)Her reflection is that of a Republican and has been for some time now.

RVD
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:19 AM
Umm, but I thought that the article was lamenting the inflammatory language used against Hillary Clinton? :confused: I think you got a bit confused there.Depends on how one views the context of the article, I would think. :shrug:

The article seems to suggest sexism as the primary reasoning for a majority of voters voting against Hillary.
Did I understand it wrong? The rest of my post is a commentary on people being taken in by 'fear'.

I've commented over a month ago as to the possible sexist reasoning some will use in this primary last month, and then again last week.
Some will vote for her due to sexist reasoning, and some against for the same. Depends on how ones' views.
However, my other point was that people should not allow fear of an 'ism' to sway their vote. They should just vote based on the strength of the candidates platform and grasp of the issues.
Articles such as this one detract from the main reason for voting a leader into office. That's all I'm saying.

I simply wish that articles would be just as forceful concerning universal issues that will affect us all economically, financially, academically, etc...

Apologies if I didn't make that clear. :o

P.S.
I'd better go back and re-read. ;)

RVD
Apr 30th, 2008, 12:23 AM
This attempt to make her a victim and hero at the same time. Hillary's actions, her words, her attitude and personality have garnered the reaction - this within the Democratic base. She's responsible for that, not her gender.

I wish this leadership she touts would have shown up in 2004 - many preferred Hillary and were fine with that choice as a Democratic nominee. Many found a better choice in Obama, Edwards, etc. Hillary reverting to negative qualities of her race and shedding her gender didn't help.

Her reflection is that of a Republican and has been for some time now.Okay, now this is what I'm suggesting as well.

How does one view this article? :shrug:
This is why it's dangerous to take journalism of this sort seriously when casting your vote.

Both candidates should come out with a "Just the issues please" approach to this primary.
How incredibly refreshing would that be ? :cool:

Philbo
Apr 30th, 2008, 09:30 AM
But one other thing: are you absolutely sure that you would not favour military action if Iran attacked Israel?

I think the Iraq war was a disaster because it made Israel more likely to be attacked if America and Britain were, as it has turned out, preoccupied and stretched by other conflicts. And even if they had not been, and the war had been a swift success, had Iraq been the main threat to Israel? And would there have been the will for yet another war in the Middle East had the Iraq war been a success? I think that's doubtful.

But nevertheless, the impact an Iranian attack on Israel would have on the West, and the message it would send out if no assistance was forthcoming, would surely leave all of us in a more precarious international situation.
This may shock you Steffica, but I actually dont think Israel needs anybodies help. They have a military and weapons (NUKES NUKES NUKES) to adequately deal with any threat to their safety.

Hillary's talk of obliterating Iran is simply her way of pandering to AIPAC - something Obama has also done in some clips Ive seen. Its a well known fact how powerful the jewish lobby is in Washington - smart politicians know they need to say the right thing to appease AIPAC etc or their life becomes a lot more difficult.

I understand the point you are trying to make about how sometimes scaremongering is a positive thing (using Hitler as your example). But I refute it. Bush has exxaggerated the threat of Fundamentalist Islam in order to justify his 'war on terror' (war for oil). I dont want another president who scares the people into being afraid of their own shadows for the next 8 years.. Enough of that already.