Clinton Touts White Support

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

As a one time fan of the Clintons I found today's developments really sad, really pathetic. It does make one wonder if the strategy has shifted to 2012 (ie let Obama have the nomination, but destroy the party and blow the election to McCain), or if it's just desperation over loaning your losing campaign several million of your own money.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yes, but if she wins the nomination, you'll be expected to cheer for her to win against McCain.

After all, we have to stop the reactionary racist warmongers from getting into the White House at all costs!

---

I like McCain much more than Hillary.

Hillary is completely artificial. She will say anything to have power. If you want to know what she will do on a specific issue, you have no chance of deriving her future actions from past statements. Would anyone had thought she would behave like an open racist five years ago? She will merely do what is in the best political interests, and she tells people what they want to hear.

McCain, to his credit, seems to have a fetish for telling people to fuck off when they disagree with him. You gotta admire the man from walking away from the Iowa caucuses twice because he could not morally shift his stand on ethanol. He'll be as right-wing as Hillary on everything except those few issues where is known to be on the left: the Environment, campaign finance, a few others.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Yes, but if she wins the nomination, you'll be expected to cheer for her to win against McCain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
it should never be forgotten that she supported Barry Goldwater over Lyndon Johnson in 1964.

---

When she was 17.

quote:

---

McCain, to his credit, seems to have a fetish for telling people to fuck off when they disagree with him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:

You're buying in to the media spin which is easy to do because the media are propping him up. His fetish for telling people to fuck off is just a nasty temper and his reputation for being a maverick is bullshit. His two signature issues in that regard are supposed to be torture and campaign finance and he's weaseled on both of them. Everything you've said about Clinton doing anything for power applies to McCain.

---

Bullshit eh?

Was the media lying to me when it told me, twice, that McCain was unwilling to shift his stance on ridiculous ethanol subsidies for competitiveness in the Iowa caucuses?

*****

As for Hillary Clinton being 17 in 1964, I could forgive her if she had changed, but she has not. She probably thinks Johnson screwed up by yielding the south to the republicans for a generation.

It should also be noted that if Hillary weasels the nomination away from obama in some anti-democratic scheme, it will enrage and embitter the hearts of millions of african americans and youth.

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

This is a man who pretended to oppose torture and then voted to give the Bush administration the ability to ignore the armed services field manual and allow the intelligence services to use whatever methods Bush decides are acceptable. (And that's not to mention his support for the Military Commissions Act which spelled the end of habeas corpus for non-citizens. And his support for immunity for telecom companies that have aided and abetted the Bush administration in spying on Americans.)

This is a man who has pretended to stand for campaign finance reform and has made a joke out of it by opting in to public financing long enough to get a loan on it and then opting out when he realized he actually didn't need it. The FEC would be all over him right now except that Bush has left the FEC without a quorum so they can't act.

This a man who pretended to tell the religious right to go away and is now seeking out and celebrating endorsements by wingnuts like John Hagee.

This is the guy who, not long ago, made a joke out of "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran."

And when you check out all the journalists who are happily riding the Straight Talk Express and dropping by McCain's house for ribs, you won't find the most prominent reporters from his home state, Arizona. They know him best and they don't think much of him.

You can have him. But I suspect you really don't know enough about him.

Edited 'cos it's John Hagee, not Bob Hagee. I was thinking of Bob Jones. That's another guy McCain was going to stand up to 'til he decided that pandering was better politics.

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
You can have him. But I suspect you really don't know enough about him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
Are you seriously going to let ethanol subsidies decide this for you?

---

Given the rapidly rising prices of rice and other staple foods, perhaps ethanol subsidies are a non-trivial issue.

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Given the rapidly rising prices of rice and other staple foods, perhaps ethanol subsidies are a non-trivial issue.

---

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: pogge ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

For the rest, I would just like to mourn once more the manner in which the Clintons have closed out this effort. It's pretty much gotta be the shabbiest episode since Monica Lewinsky.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
This is a man who pretended to oppose torture and then voted to give the Bush administration the ability to ignore the armed services field manual and allow the intelligence services to use whatever methods Bush decides are acceptable. (And that's not to mention his support for the Military Commissions Act which spelled the end of habeas corpus for non-citizens. And his support for immunity for telecom companies that have aided and abetted the Bush administration in spying on Americans.)

---

quote:

---

This is a man who has pretended to stand for campaign finance reform and has made a joke out of it by opting in to public financing long enough to get a loan on it and then opting out when he realized he actually didn't need it. The FEC would be all over him right now except that Bush has left the FEC without a quorum so they can't act.

---

quote:

---

This a man who pretended to tell the religious right to go away and is now seeking out and celebrating endorsements by wingnuts like John Hagee.

---

quote:

---

This is the guy who, not long ago, made a joke out of "Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb, bomb, Iran."

---

quote:

---

Is Clinton going to handcuff the religious right? I must have missed that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by wage zombie:

This nomination process will continue until Hillary and Bill Clinton have completely alienated themselves from the party. It may wel get shabbier.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Clinton will likely do everything in her power to handcuff the religious right.

---

Where did Clinton ever say she would?

[ 08 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:

Clinton will likely do everything in her power to handcuff the religious right. They are her opposition. Applies to Obama too. The trick is to do it without setting off the martyrdom complex.

---

She has been saying more and more that its questionable that Obama can get enough of the swing white voters.

It sure isn't pretty. But its not news anymore, and I personally think any effect she is having can be papered over later.

Nor is she really desperate. She will do just about anything to get the nomination. But shes not being desperate. Shes just doing what she is going to continue to have to do right up to the moment she concedes.

And it certainly isn't desperation over campaign debts. If that's her concern, they are history as soon as she concedes. Conversely- she knows it is a certainty that the longer she goes on, the greater the debts [and the humiliation of being at the front of a campaign that looks increasingly penniless].

The Clintons are very cunning. Not desperate, or likely to so bitter as to foul their nest.

My money is that they are now plotting the best way for Hillary to insert herself as the grand dame for life of the Democratic Party... another crack if it comes up in 2012, and if not, there are worse things than having a great deal of say in how the show the is run.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
I'm curious - which of the three remaining candidates would be your preference?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Has Clinton ...

---

You seem to be under the impression that I was here to defend Clinton. Not so. I just think McCain is even worse. He's no brighter than Bush, no more honest and possibly crazier.

quote:

---

I think Mercutio answered that question very well, as he lay dying.

---

quote:

---

Senator Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again

---

But I don't think she'll wait that long.

Obama is acting and being treated as the presumed nominee. The longer she persists while that goes on the more humiliation and the less strong her hand for what she gets for bowing out.

If she can't make everyone doubt Obama's inevitability, again, with a surprise in the next primaries... I think she'll cash it in, if not before. What can she prove with even a big victory in West Virginia where she's expected to win handidly? And what about her cachet if she gets only a modest win there- which could easily happen now?

Even if she or her senior advisors are not involved in drawing up the terms- you can bet its at least being done on their behalf. And the neutrals at the top of the party are busy seeing how much they can get for her to quit.

One big reason I don't expect her undermining of Obama with white voters to last, is because we'll see her out actively campaigning among 'her constituency' for Obama.

quote:

---

Romeo: Courage, man. The hurt cannot be much.

Mercutio: No, 'tis not so deep as a well, nor so wide as a church door; but 'tis enough, 'twill serve. Ask for me tomorrow and you will find me a grave man ... Why the devil came you between us? I was hurt under your arm.

Romeo: I thought all for the best.

Mercutio: Help me into some house, Benvolio. Or I shall faint. A plague a both your houses! They have made worms meat of me. I have it, and soundly too. Your houses!

---

"A plague on both your houses". That's the key expression, I think.

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

You know, it would be so totally neat if the guys posting on this thread showed a tiny bit of solidarity by holding off until the title changes. Just as a sweet little sign that they get how gross living in a chronically misogynist world might be, and they can do this little thing to not support signs of it here.

Gee, that would just make my day!

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: writer ]

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

Male babblers, please do not post in this thread until the ugly sexist thread title has been modified.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Male babblers, please do not post in this thread until the ugly sexist thread title has been modified.

---

I don't know if this is a serious message, but with all respect, i don't believe "shrill" is a sexist term. I've covered campaigns such as the 1989 Quebec election in which the rights-oriented Equality Party won four seats, as well as the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accord constitutional debacles. In each of these campaigns, when it became clear each was a lost cause (for the Quebec Liberals in ridings where Equality won, and for the Mulroney government in terms of Meech and Charlottetown, the messages in each campaign became more "shrill" as the election or referendum approached. I would even define Paul Martin's speeches as becoming more "shrill" as the 2006 federal election approached.

One of the definitions of "shrill" in the dictionary is "strident" .

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: Joel_Goldenberg ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
You seem to be under the impression that I was here to defend Clinton. Not so. I just think McCain is even worse.

---

quote:

---

Clinton's sin isn't racism, it's arrogance. From the beginning, the Clinton campaign has refused to consider the possibility that Obama's success was more than a fad. This was supposed to be Clinton's year, and if Obama was winning primaries, there had to be some reason that had nothing to do with merit. It was because he was black, or because he had better slogans, or because he was a better public speaker, or because he was the media's darling. This new business about white voters is just the latest story the Clinton campaign is telling itself about the usurper named Obama.

"It's still early," Clinton said Wednesday, vowing to fight on. At some level, she seems to believe the nomination is hers. Somebody had better tell her the truth before she burns the house down.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
... your itemized list of condemnations of McCain, all of which apply equally well to Clinton.

---

No. Clinton may not have stated specifically what she'll do about it, but she opposed the Military Commissions Act. She's on record as opposing telecom immunity. That's two right there.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:

No. Clinton may not have stated specifically what she'll do about it, but she opposed the Military Commissions Act. She's on record as opposing telecom immunity. That's two right there.

I think she'd be a disaster for the rest of the world and not all that great for the U.S. I think McCain would an even bigger disaster for everyone. And I think Obama is likely to be the next president so that's who you should probably be paying attention to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by pookie:
I would also be far more comfortable with Clinton's judicial picks than McCain's.

---

For Hillary Clinton, no 'clear path to victory' -- nor to an exit

It dosen't get into the gritty speculation of what she could demand and get for exiting. More general on what reasons there are for continuing X amount of time, and that she is in a position to expect something.

quote:

---

Originally posted by pogge:
No. Clinton may not have stated specifically what she'll do about it, but she opposed the Military Commissions Act.

---

Clinton refused to so-sponsor bill S. 576, proposed in the Senate to repeal many of the most onerous features of the Military Commissions Act. If passed, some of its main acts would be to:

* Restore the right of habeas corpus for people detained by the U.S.
* Narrow the definition of the MCA term “unlawful enemy combatant” to individuals who directly participate in attacks against the United States.
* Let United States detainees invoke the ethical codes of the Geneva Conventions again.
* Let U.S. detainees obtain a civilian lawyer for their defense.
* Prohibit the use of evidence garnered through torture.
* Prohibit the use of hearsay, upon the judge’s discretion.
* Let juries know how statements were obtained from detainees.
* Permit federal appeals courts to review the decisions of military commissions.

Even Barack Obama has agreed to co-sponsor the bill.

quote:

---

She's on record as opposing telecom immunity.

---

Anyway, has she said she would repeal them?

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by josh:

I guess only whites are hardworking, according to Clinton. If she misspoke, she hasn't apologized for it yet. Then again, apologies are not her strong suit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I have never heard a male politician described as "shrill." That should speak volumes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

This is why this contest is so destructive. Ooooh...sexism or racism, which will win?!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
Day two of an outrageously sexist title on babble! Whoooo!

You know, it would be so totally neat if the guys posting on this thread showed a tiny bit of solidarity by holding off until the title changes. Just as a sweet little sign that they get how gross living in a chronically misogynist world might be, and they can do this little thing to not support signs of it here.

Gee, that would just make my day!

[ 09 May 2008: Message edited by: writer ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
I have never heard a male politician described as "shrill." That should speak volumes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:

The distinction is that Obama's campaign has not engaged in sexism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

No, but a fair amount of the criticism of her from other sources has been.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Please elaborate?

---

Or, how about this thread title before it was changed, even?

BTW, when male politicians are called shrill, it's generally a way of emasculating them for having "feminine" features like a high voice. That's why Manning was called shrill. They were making fun of him for not having a deep, masculine-sounding voice.

Hillary Clinton actually doesn't have a "shrill" voice. Her voice is low, smooth-sounding, and controlled. Calling her "shrill" is simply a sexist put-down. And there are sexist put-downs of her by Obama supporters all over the web. Are they directly tied to his official campaign? Maybe not, although I have a hard time believing that of all of these anonymous Democratic political wonks making sexist comments about Clinton on political discussion boards and blogs for the past year, not even one of them is in any way a donor to, or volunteering for, or in any way connected to, the Obama campaign.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jrootham:
Try this.

---

This is FABULOUS. This describes my feelings EXACTLY. This is exactly the kind of feeling I get when I hear some Obama supporters trash Clinton:

quote:

---

"Hillary Clinton is not an attractive personality for a lot of people," said O'Brien, who noted that it's "very convenient that the same people who have a sense of discomfort with female authority they prefer not to examine" also object to her personality and record in specific terms, an antipathy they feel comfortable voicing. "What you get," said O'Brien, "is the energy of the first expressed in words of the second."

Perhaps it's because of the abundance of rational reasons to dislike Clinton -– perfect for disguising any unsightly misogynistic blemishes -– that many women described frustration at being unable to name specific instances of what they have felt as gender bias. Lossia, the Obama-supporting labor lawyer, explained that with her friends, "I've never heard them say anything where I could say, 'That's a sexist comment.' It's just that I can't understand why they hate her so much. I just have a feeling that they wouldn't be as bothered by her if she were a man. But that's very intuitive ... I think some of the guys just have some kind of visceral dislike for her." Lossia said she has asked why they despise Clinton. "People can always come up with reasons they don't like the candidate they're not supporting," she said. "But no one disliked Joe Biden or Chris Dodd as much as they dislike Hillary."

Jessica Valenti, the founder of Web site Feministing, has spent recent weeks touring colleges, including Georgetown, University of Mary Washington, University of Akron and University of Missouri. She said that before her travels, she'd been "expecting a lot more Obama craziness" on campuses. To her surprise, at almost every school she visited, young women told her, "My friends or boyfriend or father are progressive guys, but when they talk about Hillary, I feel like they're being sexist. But I can't put my finger on what it is."

Valenti continued, "Because their friends were not being specifically sexist, or saying something that was tangibly misogynistic, they were having a hard time talking about the sexism of it." Valenti confirmed that this "Feminine Mystique"-y problem that has no name was familiar to her. "I spoke to a guy friend who said, 'You're being ridiculous. I'm not not voting for her because she's a woman; I'm not voting for her because she's a bitch!' He could not see the connection between the two things at all." Valenti said he explained away his comment by declaring, "I mean 'a bitch' in the sense that she's not good on this or that issue."

---

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

I'm worried I'm the only one who read that post and then felt the need to look up the term in the dictionary...

---

Funny, I would be thrilled. Though I would suspect many others also didn't know the term, but couldn't be bothered, because they don't give a shit and couldn't be bothered with the whining of a woman in an otherwise serious thread where men tackle the real, important issues of the day.

quote:

---

In today's United States, racism continues to have more damaging economic and social structural implications for African-Americans than sexism has for women. Especially white and well-educated women, who are catching up to their male counterparts, if not in terms of equal pay or domestic expectations or secure reproductive options, at least in their ability to pursue the education and vocation they desire. And that makes them a more threatening group to the population of white men who have enjoyed unchallenged power -- in the White House and other workplaces -- since the birth of the nation. Those who feel the army of tough ladies breathing down their necks, competing for jobs and salaries and refusing to drop out of the race, are the population of privileged white men from which the elite portion of the Democratic Party is built.

That does not mean that all privileged white male Democrats are sexist, anymore than it would be true to suggest that all working-class white Democrats (the segment of the party that is breaking for Clinton) are racist. But a lightly disguised uneasiness with female power, as well as the "we love women, just not that woman" rhetoric will be familiar to anyone who has paid attention to the reception of the feminist movement. It's the movement of which Clinton has become emblematic -– not because it was her bailiwick, but because she has been exactly the kind of woman that feminism made room for: ambitious, ball-busting, high-earning, untrained in the finer arts of hair care, and unwilling to play dumber (or nicer) than she is.

These women –- and the movement whence they sprang -– have never been the most popular girls in the Democratic Party, even if the party's male elders have grown up enough to know that they're not supposed to say so out loud anymore. At least not until they find themselves pinching Clinton's cheek like Chris Matthews, or accusing her of destroying the party by staying in a race in which she is still competitive. It's like how Democrats love women, just not those goddamned women with their single-issue reproductive rights obsession that sticks us with Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman.

---

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I also think this is interesting - white male liberals in the US feel more threatened by a white woman than a black man, because race is a harder discrimination barrier to overcome than gender is for white women

---

A link to the article would be good, as really this makes no sense to me in that contextual framework.

First, re: Hillary Clinton's voice, a lot of people have commented on her mid-western twang (at least when she's not doing a southern accent). That accent is often considered to be one of the worst American accents possible. That in itself has nothing to do with gender. I know, people will say what about Obama, he's from Chicago? Will, actually he's from Hawaii and has only been in Chicago since 1992 so it's not quite as prominent. I mean hello, have you ever watched Fargo? She doesn't sound as bad as those characters, but sometimes it isn't that far off.

Second, I think the exit polling has been pretty conclusive that bigoted voters are more likely (or at least more open about) not voting for Obama because of his race as opposed to Clinton because of her gender. If you go to the exit polling you'll see that in Pennsylvania 20% of people thought gender was important in determining who they vote for. But, of those people 72% voted for Clinton. 6% of the electorate who thought gender was important were men and they still voted 3:2 for Clinton. Whereas 19% thought race was important voted 59% to 41% against Obama. 12% of the electorate who thought race was important were white, and they voted 76% to 24% against Obama.

In North Carolina gender hurt Clinton, because 21% of the electorate thought it was important and they voted 54% to 43% against Clinton. 9% of them were men, and they voted 57% to 40% against Clinton, but the 12% of the electorate who are women who thought so voted 52% to 47% against Clinton too. Race was helpful to Obama in North Carolina, according to the 18% of the electorate who voted 63% to 35% for him. But whites who said it was important made up 8% of the electorate and voted 62% to 36% against Obama.

In Indiana 16% said gender was important and they voted 59% to 41% for Clinton. Only 5% of the electorate were men who said it was important, but they didn't give percentages of who they voted for. Race however hurt Obama, since 16% of the electorate thought it was important and they voted 53% to 47% against him. And of them, whites who thought it was important made up 10% of the entire electorate and voted 78% to 22% against him.

So basically, it seems like there are more voters who will vote against Obama because of his race than against Clinton because of her gender. And even when there are more sexist voters, they aren't nearly as vociferous in their opposition as racist voters are in theirs.

If you extrapolate this to the entire country, it's obvious that race will be more of a negative factor for Obama, since few states have as black of an electorate as the North Carolina Democratic primary. That being said, those that do are mostly southern, and their white populations are still a majority who mostly vote Republican. So, basically Clinton has a chance to win states like Arkansas, West Virginia and Kentucky whereas Obama does not. Whereas, Obama will struggle in Missouri, Ohio and Pennsylvania because of race, but Clinton will likely win all three. As for the upper-mid west, and western states that Obama is stronger in, that has nothing to do with gender, and everything to do with Ideology and strategy.

quote:

---

Leftists both within and without the Democratic Party have been for years operating under the delusion that, in order to oppose Republican policies, they must work to help the cause of any candidate that has a “D” after his/her name, regardless of how personally distasteful the candidate is or how unappealing the rightward moving Democratic platform is. This “lesser of two evils” approach is dangerous, foolish, and damaging to leftist causes as it keeps many normally progressive people locked into a party that’s tenants and leadership have long ago stopped representing progressive ideals and instead have furthered the interests of Republicans and large corporations.

At first glance, “lesser of two evils” voting doesn’t seem like such a bad idea. We support the candidate who is the “least worst” until such a time that we can run a real candidate who truly represents us. However, no one seems to be able to say who that candidate is and when we will ever see him or her. In fact, no one has ever even attempted to explain why a party that already is ensured the progressive vote under this “Republicans are worse” mentality will every seek to change, especially since a more centrist approach has given Democratic candidates a hell of a lot more financial support from various corporate interests.

But fortunately, in this election, we may be able to break free of this illusion, not only because it is logically unsound but because, this time, there truly is no lesser evil to speak of. Rank-and-file Democrats will surely be appalled at such a statement.

“Obama/Clinton at all similar to John McCain? 100-year war McCain? Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran McCain? Surely, no comparison can be made!”

Unfortunately, a comparison can be easily made. Stripped of rhetoric and pomp and laid bare, the political positions of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and John McCain on a number of issues are largely indistinguishable....

---

[ 10 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Obama hugs Sallai Meridor (Israeli Ambassador to U.S.) and pledges that he will "do whatever I can in whatever capacity to not only ensure Israel's security but also to ensure that the people of Israel may thrive and prosper and build on the enormous promise that was made 60 years ago."

Clinton said:

quote:

---

Just as the United States recognized Israel at birth, and has always stood by Israel when its survival and well-being were challenged, so too do the American people stand by Israel today, united by shared values and strong bonds of friendship.

---

McCain said Hamas preferred Obama as president.

This was almost as absurd as some so-called Green Party operatives trying to claim that the NDP was "sexist" for calling an idea of Elizabeth May's "silly" (as if silly ideas aren't silly ideas regardless of whether they are hatched by a man or a woman).

quote:

---

There is so much actual sexism in the world - this type of petty debate on semantics only trivializes it.

---

Welcome back. Seems you've learned not one thing in your time to reflect.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: writer ]

If someone wants to have a RATIONAL, LOGICAL discussion (with no ad hominem name calling) on what is or is not an example of sexism - I think we would all benefit from that.

Either disagree with the SUBSTANCE of what other people say or say nothing at all. Stupid sarcastic remarks accomplish absolutely NOTHING.

This thread is about Hillary Clinton. Someone who I once kind of liked, but who I now can't stand (and apparently judging by the primary results I'm not alone in that opinion).

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

There is so much actual sexism in the world - this type of petty debate on semantics only trivializes it.

---

Articualte women on babble objected to using "shrill" to describe female politicans and made it clear as to why its sexist - they don't feel it's simply semantics or trivial nor do I. Then along comes a man who tells them their objections are trivial and simply semantics. When a man dismisses the requests of Feminists and trys to tell us we should be focussing on more bigger issues that's sexism.

Anyway, speaking of HRC, James Carville himself seems to be joining those who are writing her political obituary. I think we're at the stage now where she's going through the motions while lots of back room negotiations are going on.

quote:

---

I will assume your a fucking moron

---

Glad to see evidence of how "articulate" you are.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

I don't care if you don't think shrill is a sexist term. Feminists do.

---

Michelle's explanation should have been the end of it, but after her post I count several men who just had to pile on and add up all the poor men labelled shrill and unable to see how that works just like calling a man a "pussy" in terms of being a shitty sexist term, someone had to go look it up as if that removes the nasty stink of sexism from the word and then we get an utterly sexist comment from stockholm.

A lot of people would say that calling someone a "moron" is a bigoted expression that insults people with mental handicaps and/or low levels of intelligence.

can we agree that any future reference to anyone as a "moron" should be grounds for immediate disciplinary action.

[ 13 May 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]

quote:

---

Glad to see evidence of how "articulate" you are.

---

Well, considering those who count aren't going to have an problem undertstanding what I think of you and why I'd say I was pretty darn "articulate".

There will no one left thinking "Hmmm I can't tell if Scout thinks stockholm is clever or a fucking moron? I am so confused, can't she be more clear?"

It appears that Stockholm never met men who call women nags or complain about high-pitched 'whiny' voices.