Perceived illegitimacy sows incredibly destructive feelings toward political leaders. Bill Clinton winning by a plurality but not a majority and George W. Bush being appointed the winner by the Supreme Court also touched off serious ill will.
The opposition has to accept the legitimacy of it's defeat for the body politic to remain healthy. Otherwise ill will just festers.
uuuuhhhh what
hillary clinton managed to piss people off with legislation despite not being an elected official. there's nothing illigetimate about her NOW, but she gave people a ton of ammunition in the early 90's.
what i think is kind of crazy is how liberal some people think she is, when she's really one of the more moderate democrats trying to get the nomination. i mean crap, she used to be a freakin' goldwater girl.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
Perceived illegitimacy sows incredibly destructive feelings toward political leaders. Bill Clinton winning by a plurality but not a majority and George W. Bush being appointed the winner by the Supreme Court also touched off serious ill will.
The opposition has to accept the legitimacy of it's defeat for the body politic to remain healthy. Otherwise ill will just festers.
uuuuhhhh what
hillary clinton managed to piss people off with legislation despite not being an elected official. there's nothing illigetimate about her NOW, but she gave people a ton of ammunition in the early 90's.
I know, that is what I was talking about.
It doesn't really matter what she is now. It's a question of the initial attitude.
Perceived illegitimacy sows incredibly destructive feelings toward political leaders. Bill Clinton winning by a plurality but not a majority and George W. Bush being appointed the winner by the Supreme Court also touched off serious ill will.
The opposition has to accept the legitimacy of it's defeat for the body politic to remain healthy. Otherwise ill will just festers.
uuuuhhhh what
hillary clinton managed to piss people off with legislation despite not being an elected official. there's nothing illigetimate about her NOW, but she gave people a ton of ammunition in the early 90's.
I know, that is what I was talking about.
It doesn't really matter what she is now. It's a question of the initial attitude.
okay, i see what you're saying.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
We could probably get a pretty strong Lieberman, McCain, Romney hate-on in here for the same reasons that have been proffered.
Exactly. Anyone who will sell off principles to the highest bidder deserves harsh criticism, regardless of gender. The folks who dislike Hillary because she's a 'bitch' use the same reasoning found in Bush supporters who don't know shit about the guy, but would 'like to have a beer with him.' In other words, they're mouth breathers and an uncontrollable x-factor of stupid when election time rolls around. Frankly, I don't think it's a significant voting bloc--most of the misogynists are voting for the GOP anyway.
Until she did an about-face on Iraq last year, Hillary and Joe Lieberman seemed to be competing for the same ideological real estate. That's not popular with the base, and it's a complete misread to suggest that a significant number of dems 'just hate a strong woman.'
Just curious. If you're viewing the country's dislike of Clinton as sexist, do you explain the Obama love with the fact that the US is a great racial utopia?
Our nation is on the whole very sexist. Enough so that white middle america isn't going to like any female presidential candidate, and therefore not going to vote for her. I'm not going to repost everything I already wrote so go back and read or not.
In regards to Obama...I think you're reaching dude. What? Are you going to argue that our country has already transcended its sexist and racist trangressions and that Obama and Clinton are going to get a fair shake at the presidency? I'm glad that they're both running because our country seems to be demanding someone from the Democrat party, with a little luck and 'politiking' it'll force the issue for us to finally elect a Black man or a female.
And for the record; I don't think media coverage alone evinces that we are a sexist society. It is a good indicator.
What does the whiteness of middle america have to do with your gender bias theory?
I don't claim to speak for Werdna, but he* might be bringing up the intersectionality of race, gender, and class politics in American society. Assuming "middle America" means socially conservative, and socially conservative tends to be more sexist, racist, and classist than socially liberal, then the "whiteness of middle America" may in fact be connected to gender bias re: Hillary for Prez.
* no offense intended if Werdna is not a male named Andrew
I'm glad that they're both running because our country seems to be demanding someone from the Democrat party, with a little luck and 'politiking' it'll force the issue for us to finally elect a Black man or a female.
I'm sorry, but I have to point this out quickly. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. For example:
Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, belongs to the Democratic Party.
I'm glad that they're both running because our country seems to be demanding someone from the Democrat party, with a little luck and 'politiking' it'll force the issue for us to finally elect a Black man or a female.
I'm sorry, but I have to point this out quickly. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. For example:
Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, belongs to the Democratic Party.
Republicans have been trying to make that particular piece of doublespeak mainstream for years (because "democratic" is a positive term in American politics, and God forbid they accidentally associate the Democrats with any positive terminology). It's always disappointing to see someone who isn't a Republican talking head use the term non-ironically.
I'm glad that they're both running because our country seems to be demanding someone from the Democrat party, with a little luck and 'politiking' it'll force the issue for us to finally elect a Black man or a female.
I'm sorry, but I have to point this out quickly. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. For example:
Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, belongs to the Democratic Party.
Our nation is on the whole very sexist. Enough so that white middle america isn't going to like any female presidential candidate, and therefore not going to vote for her. I'm not going to repost everything I already wrote so go back and read or not.
You missed the entire road I was going down. I read your post. It basically said "people don't like Hilary because we're (the US) a sexist society." That's the short of your post.
My simple response is "explain Obama." Our society is FAR more racist than it is sexist, but we have a black male making aims for the whitehouse. Not only is he making aims, but a large portion of the population (including most of the media) are in his corner. If the dislike of Hilary was simply "America hates her because she's a woman," why does that reasoning not apply to Obama at all?
I could go into your whole schoolhouse example of "when was the last ____ president," but I think my point is pretty clear.
In regards to Obama...I think you're reaching dude. What? Are you going to argue that our country has already transcended its sexist and racist trangressions and that Obama and Clinton are going to get a fair shake at the presidency? I'm glad that they're both running because our country seems to be demanding someone from the Democrat party, with a little luck and 'politiking' it'll force the issue for us to finally elect a Black man or a female.
Am I saying that race or sexism isn't a problem? No. Am I saying that Obama and Clinton are going to get a fair shake? Yes. They are going to get a fair shake in the same respect that they will have to make it through the fire the same way every other candidate will. Will they have people not voting for them because they are a minority? Yes. Will they have people voting for them specifically because they ARE a minority? Yes. Will they have smear campaigns against them? Yes. That's politics.
And for the record; I don't think media coverage alone evinces that we are a sexist society. It is a good indicator.
Again, I think it shows more of our racist tendencies.
Either way, I just don't see how hate for Clinton shows how sexist we are when there isn't nearly that hate level for Obama and the country is far more racist. That's pretty much the short of my post.
First of all, since when is America more racist than sexist?
Second of all, don't you think the fact racism is less socially acceptable than sexism might have an effect on criticism of Obama that is obviously rooted in his race?
First of all, since when is America more racist than sexist?
You can't be serious. American has been more racist than sexist since its inception (look at Jonestown). There isn't enough time to have this argument so let's just imagine we went through the whole "no right to own property" vs the whole "you are property" argument.
Second of all, don't you think the fact racism is less socially acceptable than sexism might have an effect on criticism of Obama that is obviously rooted in his race?
Of course. No one is going to get on TV and say "I hate Obama because he's black," but I imagine that no one would do that with the Clinton/woman thing either. What I'm addressing is the absolute mania surrounding Obama vs the hatred surrounding Clinton. The democratic populous is really making Obama a superstar, and its not doing that for Clinton. That's where I see the real flaw in the "people hate Clinton because she's female" rationale.
I'm personally not a fan of Clinton, but it's not because she's a woman. I don't like her because she doesn't seem to have any convictions. She seems as if she's the type of person who would gladly step on your head to advance. The whole Hot Coffee thing lost her a bunch of points in my book, the same way the Night Trap fiasco did for Lieberman. Added to that, she doesn't connect with people. That's important to a lot of voters.
Do some people not like her because she's a woman. Sure. I don't think it's the majority, though.
You do have people joking that the US would go to war once a month with a female president. Voicing sexism is certainly more acceptable than voicing racism.
You can't be serious. American has been more racist than sexist since its inception (look at Jonestown). There isn't enough time to have this argument so let's just imagine we went through the whole "no right to own property" vs the whole "you are property" argument.
Maybe we need some clarification as to what "more" means. Do we mean there are more racists than sexists, or that racist attitudes have a greater effect on the lives of minorities than sexist attitudes have on the lives of men and women?
Of course. No one is going to get on TV and say "I hate Obama because he's black," but I imagine that no one would do that with the Clinton/woman thing either. What I'm addressing is the absolute mania surrounding Obama vs the hatred surrounding Clinton. The democratic populous is really making Obama a superstar, and its not doing that for Clinton. That's where I see the real flaw in the "people hate Clinton because she's female" rationale.
I'm personally not a fan of Clinton, but it's not because she's a woman. I don't like her because she doesn't seem to have any convictions. She seems as if she's the type of person who would gladly step on your head to advance. The whole Hot Coffee thing lost her a bunch of points in my book, the same way the Night Trap fiasco did for Lieberman. Added to that, she doesn't connect with people. That's important to a lot of voters.
Do some people not like her because she's a woman. Sure. I don't think it's the majority, though.
Hot Coffee? Really? I like videogames too, but I'm not going to let a minor event like that decide my vote.
Anyway, we're not talking about blatant displays of racism and sexism on par with, "I hate Obama because he's black," or, "I hate Hilary because she's a woman." After all, it was the criticism of qualities she possesses that are seen as assets or minor matters when displayed by men that brought sexism into this conversation in the first place. Namely, "She looks like she'll do anything to be President."
An equivalent of Obama would possibly be, "The guy will favor minority interests over more important issues."
Regardless, I'm having a hard time seeing your logic. Are you saying that, because Obama has gotten so much press, that racist attitudes will have no effect on whether or not he is nominated and possibly elected? That he is, somehow, immune to racism?
So racism exists, but doesn't effect Obama, and therefore sexism has no effect on Clinton either because sexism is less prevalent than racism and the two operate in the same way?
Until she did an about-face on Iraq last year, Hillary and Joe Lieberman seemed to be competing for the same ideological real estate. That's not popular with the base, and it's a complete misread to suggest that a significant number of dems 'just hate a strong woman.'
For the record, I think I'd be more inclined to vote for just about any other semi-well-known female Democrat over Clinton.
Though admittedly the only ones that spring to mind are Senator Pelosi, Delegate Norton of Washington D.C., and my state's Governor, Janet Napolitano.
Maybe we need some clarification as to what "more" means. Do we mean there are more racists than sexists, or that racist attitudes have a greater effect on the lives of minorities than sexist attitudes have on the lives of men and women?
I would be inclined to say that if we looked at it from either definition, racism would still beat sexism.
Hot Coffee? Really? I like videogames too, but I'm not going to let a minor event like that decide my vote.
Attacking GTA is free capital for any politician. You don't win points with me over it. Then to attack Hot Coffee and spew a bunch of misinformation regarding it makes you seem worse to me. It stinks of the Night Trap scandal, where after the fuss Lieberman kicked up, he finally admitted he had never seen the game.
Anyway, we're not talking about blatant displays of racism and sexism on par with, "I hate Obama because he's black," or, "I hate Hilary because she's a woman." After all, it was the criticism of qualities she possesses that are seen as assets or minor matters when displayed by men that brought sexism into this conversation in the first place. Namely, "She looks like she'll do anything to be President."
No, no and no. "X will do anything to be President" is NOT something that is seen as a minor matter or even an asset to men in the race. If you think otherwise, look at John McCain. His "straight talk express" is a train wreck at this point because he went from idealist to maverick to someone who would do anything to be President.
Regardless, I'm having a hard time seeing your logic.
My logic is simply this. If one says that our dislike of Clinton is primarily because of sexism, then it would only stand to reason that in as racist a society the US is, Obama would also fall to these same pitfalls. He's not though, so it would stand to reason that it is something OTHER than basic discrimination that is keeping people from her.
(I wasn't trying to turn this into a race vs sex debate. I was just using the race point as a counterweight against the original argument.)
Yeah, McCain joining hands with Falwell for some political capital isn't something that is smiled upon by a lot of the supporters of his previous style. That sort of stuff has cost him a lot face, at least in my book. Clinton's issue is a similar beast, although there hasn't been that much of a changeover in her as there was with McCain.
I really don't buy this sexism buisiness. I don't doubt that there are some people who are against her simply because she is a woman with her personality. But with the offset of people who are for her just because she is a woman I doubt that the net effect of it is going to have a substantial effect. This may acount for some of the divergence in the opinion about her and the large amount of negativity, but I am somewhat dubious to the extent of that contribution especially given that she is courting the liberal side of the isle.
Like it or not she's going to get scrutinized more becasue she has a chance of winning. Right now McCain simply doesn't.
I dislike her primarily becasue she seems very evasive and vague even for a politician. I've never heard her give solid answers on anything.
Did you watch the first debate? She gave pretty solid answers on universal healthcare (instead of dumping money into programs that don't work, fix the programs if they can be salvaged, dump the ones that can't be fixed, and adequately fund ones with potential/actually work) and on her response if there were another terrorist attack on US soil (find the people responsible and respond swiftly and decisively against those involved with military force..............after getting international support and making sure we know who did it for sure meaning no "link between Iraq and al Qaeda" bullshit).
Nobody else gave more substantive answers than she to those questions and those answers are pretty specific. Also, if you haven't, you should attend one of her speeches. She is an impressive speaker, imho. She is very bright, forceful, and articulate. Perhaps she doesn't have Bill's charm but few do.
Edit: for clarity and intelligibility
sanstodo on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
edited April 2007
I think it's naive to think that a significantly infinitesimal portion of the criticism is due to her being a woman.
I also think it's naive to think that a significantly huge portion of the criticism is due to her being a woman.
I think it's naive to think that a significantly infinitesimal portion of the criticism is due to her being a woman.
I also think it's naive to think that a significantly huge portion of the criticism is due to her being a woman.
yeah. like has been said a ton of times already, there are tons of legit reasons to not like hillary as a politician that have absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman. on the other hand, one of the most important tools of the uninformed voter is a snap judgement, and unfortunately being a woman isn't going to help her in that regard (personally i think what pisses conservatives off a lot more than her gender is her husband).
i just hope that if she gets the nomination, we don't see the "you just don't like her because she's a woman" card played over and over and over.
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
She's saying and doing whatever it takes to get into office. Barack Obama at least seems to be an honest individual who seeks a change in government, and will bring a fresh perspective into the office. I really don't know what Hillary would be like in office, because I don't feel like I trust anything that comes out of her mouth.
These are pretty much my thoughts as well.
SithDrummer on
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
jothki, the flag-burning bill she sponsored (...I think?), at any rate, was very obviously never going to pass, and of course she knew that.
Is that what they call being defeated by a single vote these days? And not a 51-49 spread, mind you. It was an amendment so it needed 67 supporters. It had 66.
They plan the votes on these very carefully. A flag-burning amendment is a very popular issue overall, with certain locations even moreso. However, no one in the Senate honestly wants it to pass - the Dems know it's a terrible idea, the sane Republicans know it's a bad idea, and the Republicans on the whole know that if they ban flag burning, it takes the fire (and campaign donations) out of the bellies of the American Legion and VFWs.
As for Hillary - the two big issues are residual hatred from the nineties, and a general social resistance to a woman who plays a "man's game" without the fainting and curtsying of a Liddy Dole. She's very politically pragmatic, a little blunt and flat, and doesn't have the easy charisma of her husband. A lesser factor are the self-styled left-wing internet activists who don't think she's "liberal enough".
Basically, she has a lot of political strengths and great networks, but has what they call in politics very high "negatives".
Also, she really is pretty liberal, much more than her demeanor suggests. Not so much the touchy-feely pie-in-the-sky liberal, but a very pragmatic mechanistic "get money for medical care for kids" sort of liberal. Much more LBJ or Bill Clinton than Hubert Humphries or Adlai Stevenson. Honestly, I think she'd make a great president, but I think she'd have a lot of difficulty in the general election.
I think our country is far more sexist then it is racist... and I think this because the sexism is so ingrained in our society that it is daily reenforced and rarely challenged, while racism, at least on some level, is challenged often.
I think racism seems more prevelent for the exact same reason... because it is easier to see and often times comes off as more offensive.
Sentry on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
wrote:
When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
0
Options
Irond WillWARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!!Cambridge. MAModeratormod
What does the whiteness of middle america have to do with your gender bias theory?
There are probably somewhat different gender norms between different ethnic groups. If the WB is to be believed, it's more acceptable to be an assertive, self-reliant, strong black woman than an assertive, self-reliant, strong white woman. Hillary plays pretty well to black voters from what I've seen of polls (better than Obama!), though I have no idea if this is due to differing social expectations or just the Clinton legacy.
The sexists who wouldn't vote for her are already Republican and the sexists who would vote for any woman already vote Democratic, so I don't think her gender is going to be a huge issue. The real problems are:
1) Our presidential names since 1988 (if Clinton wins in 2008) would go: Bush, Clinton-Clinton, Bush-Bush, Clinton. There's a growing sense that we need *someone* in the high office that hasn't been in its orbit for decades.
2) Hillary voted for the war, Obama didn't. Edwards apologized for it, at least..
3) Hillary still has a 'vietnam radical feminist' past and it's not going away. Not that I think there's anything wrong with those three words, but when we focus elections on the culture wars and not on policy, we end up getting people like Bush. Hillary isn't divisive on a policy level, but she sure is on the patriotism-values-religion front, and it seems like this is a horrible time to relive those retarded flamewars.
4) Why nominate a liberal that conservatives despise? Why not find a consensus figure who might actually be able to get something done?
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
I'm definitely in the "Does she actually mean anything she says? I really doubt it" camp. I felt the same way about Kerry last time around, except it was more along the lines of not thinking he had anything useful to say except the opposite of whatever came out of Bush's mouth.
Being fairly centrist and a registered independent, I would consider myself fairly neutral on her except for one thing: "standing by" a philandering spouse for the sole purpose of hanging onto the political power that comes with being his spouse.
Anyone that is that addicted to power, to want political power so badly they are willing to overlook indescretions and infidelity by a person that is supposed to be your faithful partner through thick and thin, that is the absolute last person I want to have said power.
I dont care what side of her political issues you fall, that is to me the only real "issue" that is a dealbreaker, for me. To be that obsessive of political standing that your public face is completely ok with unusual uses of cigars, regardless of impeachment/lying under oath about it, all that ....just the pure and simple fact that A. You know your husband is cheating on you , and B. Being ok with that since it is politicaly advantageous for you to stay with him....I can't vote for someone with those morals. Which is a shame because I do think that the time is quite past due for a female president, as well as one that comes from a racial minority.
The sexists who wouldn't vote for her are already Republican and the sexists who would vote for any woman already vote Democratic, so I don't think her gender is going to be a huge issue. The real problems are:
I think you're underestimating subconscious gender bias. I wouldn't say sexist, because that's hardly fair to all the real sexists, but gender roles are deeply ingrained into our culture. Just look at the classic surgeon riddle.
Being fairly centrist and a registered independent, I would consider myself fairly neutral on her except for one thing: "standing by" a philandering spouse for the sole purpose of hanging onto the political power that comes with being his spouse.
Anyone that is that addicted to power, to want political power so badly they are willing to overlook indescretions and infidelity by a person that is supposed to be your faithful partner through thick and thin, that is the absolute last person I want to have said power.
I dont care what side of her political issues you fall, that is to me the only real "issue" that is a dealbreaker, for me. To be that obsessive of political standing that your public face is completely ok with unusual uses of cigars, regardless of impeachment/lying under oath about it, all that ....just the pure and simple fact that A. You know your husband is cheating on you , and B. Being ok with that since it is politicaly advantageous for you to stay with him....I can't vote for someone with those morals. Which is a shame because I do think that the time is quite past due for a female president, as well as one that comes from a racial minority.
As much as people want to write that whole scandal off as silly or unimportant, I really think it did hurt her. But at the same time, would she have gotten even more flak for abandoning him? Then she'd be the bitch who left him at his weakest hour, or something.
Being fairly centrist and a registered independent, I would consider myself fairly neutral on her except for one thing: "standing by" a philandering spouse for the sole purpose of hanging onto the political power that comes with being his spouse.
Er.
I'm not sure how appropriate this is. Do we know enough about the Clinton marriage that we can say it only held together for political expediency, or are you assuming she stood by Bill for political reasons because we've seen she's power-hungry, and then using that to prove that she is power-hungry?
Because last I checked, infidelity doesn't always necessitate divorce, even when it becomes public.
In response, in her 2001 memoir Living History, Clinton explains that love is the reason she stays with her husband. "[N]o one understands me better and no one can make me laugh the way Bill does. Even after all these years, he is still the most interesting, energizing and fully alive person I have ever met. Bill and I started a conversation in the spring of 1971, and more than thirty years later we're still talking."[43]
When Bill Clinton required immediate heart surgery in October 2004, Hillary Clinton canceled her public schedule to be at his side at the Columbia University Medical Center of New York Presbyterian Hospital. He actively campaigned for her Senate races and is considered her closest political advisor.[44]
Being fairly centrist and a registered independent, I would consider myself fairly neutral on her except for one thing: "standing by" a philandering spouse for the sole purpose of hanging onto the political power that comes with being his spouse.
Anyone that is that addicted to power, to want political power so badly they are willing to overlook indescretions and infidelity by a person that is supposed to be your faithful partner through thick and thin, that is the absolute last person I want to have said power.
I dont care what side of her political issues you fall, that is to me the only real "issue" that is a dealbreaker, for me. To be that obsessive of political standing that your public face is completely ok with unusual uses of cigars, regardless of impeachment/lying under oath about it, all that ....just the pure and simple fact that A. You know your husband is cheating on you , and B. Being ok with that since it is politicaly advantageous for you to stay with him....I can't vote for someone with those morals. Which is a shame because I do think that the time is quite past due for a female president, as well as one that comes from a racial minority.
I love how Hilary Clinton is the only woman in the world who receives no sympathy when her husband cheats on her.
Regardless, I wouldn't expect any 60 year old man to turn down a chance to philander with a much younger woman, given the opportunity. That doesn't necessarily invalidate every marriage between elderly persons, though, does it?
Being fairly centrist and a registered independent, I would consider myself fairly neutral on her except for one thing: "standing by" a philandering spouse for the sole purpose of hanging onto the political power that comes with being his spouse.
Anyone that is that addicted to power, to want political power so badly they are willing to overlook indescretions and infidelity by a person that is supposed to be your faithful partner through thick and thin, that is the absolute last person I want to have said power.
I dont care what side of her political issues you fall, that is to me the only real "issue" that is a dealbreaker, for me. To be that obsessive of political standing that your public face is completely ok with unusual uses of cigars, regardless of impeachment/lying under oath about it, all that ....just the pure and simple fact that A. You know your husband is cheating on you , and B. Being ok with that since it is politicaly advantageous for you to stay with him....I can't vote for someone with those morals. Which is a shame because I do think that the time is quite past due for a female president, as well as one that comes from a racial minority.
As much as people want to write that whole scandal off as silly or unimportant, I really think it did hurt her. But at the same time, would she have gotten even more flak for abandoning him? Then she'd be the bitch who left him at his weakest hour, or something.
Yeah but to me it is more of the "Do anything, say anything to get/stay in political power". And my personal politics is that is someone to be avoided. I would be much more impressed with someone, even if they were more to the right or left than I like, if they said " Here are my 3 to 4 core issues I want to accomplish in office, here is how I stand on a variety of the "hot button" issues, and I plan on only serving one term." To me that is someone who is focused on what a president is there to do, lead the country for 4 years, try to get some of their core issues accomplished but largely there to serve the public's interests rather than special interests. That person would get my vote over someone who was closer to my political ideology but stunk of career politician.
So you can't imagine why a 60 year old woman wouldn't end a decade long marriage after discovering her husband was involved in an affair, excepting political ambitions?
Oh I can imagine why...I just wouldnt respect that decision, especialy when it is someone that wants to be responsible for the entire country. It's not like this is Old Lady Clinton, who has stayed at home her entire life and has to turn a blind eye to her husbands infidelity because she cant survive on her own.....
Oh I can imagine why...I just wouldnt respect that decision, especialy when it is someone that wants to be responsible for the entire country. It's not like this is Old Lady Clinton, who has stayed at home her entire life and has to turn a blind eye to her husbands infidelity because she cant survive on her own.....
None of this has ANYTHING to do with her ability to govern and govern effectively.
Posts
uuuuhhhh what
hillary clinton managed to piss people off with legislation despite not being an elected official. there's nothing illigetimate about her NOW, but she gave people a ton of ammunition in the early 90's.
what i think is kind of crazy is how liberal some people think she is, when she's really one of the more moderate democrats trying to get the nomination. i mean crap, she used to be a freakin' goldwater girl.
I know, that is what I was talking about.
It doesn't really matter what she is now. It's a question of the initial attitude.
okay, i see what you're saying.
Exactly. Anyone who will sell off principles to the highest bidder deserves harsh criticism, regardless of gender. The folks who dislike Hillary because she's a 'bitch' use the same reasoning found in Bush supporters who don't know shit about the guy, but would 'like to have a beer with him.' In other words, they're mouth breathers and an uncontrollable x-factor of stupid when election time rolls around. Frankly, I don't think it's a significant voting bloc--most of the misogynists are voting for the GOP anyway.
Until she did an about-face on Iraq last year, Hillary and Joe Lieberman seemed to be competing for the same ideological real estate. That's not popular with the base, and it's a complete misread to suggest that a significant number of dems 'just hate a strong woman.'
In regards to Obama...I think you're reaching dude. What? Are you going to argue that our country has already transcended its sexist and racist trangressions and that Obama and Clinton are going to get a fair shake at the presidency? I'm glad that they're both running because our country seems to be demanding someone from the Democrat party, with a little luck and 'politiking' it'll force the issue for us to finally elect a Black man or a female.
And for the record; I don't think media coverage alone evinces that we are a sexist society. It is a good indicator.
I don't claim to speak for Werdna, but he* might be bringing up the intersectionality of race, gender, and class politics in American society. Assuming "middle America" means socially conservative, and socially conservative tends to be more sexist, racist, and classist than socially liberal, then the "whiteness of middle America" may in fact be connected to gender bias re: Hillary for Prez.
* no offense intended if Werdna is not a male named Andrew
I'm sorry, but I have to point this out quickly. Democrat is a noun. Democratic is an adjective. For example:
Hillary Clinton, a Democrat, belongs to the Democratic Party.
That's probably true, and I'm not sure whether I think the anti-Clinton misogyny or the anti-Obama racism is more widespread.
Haha. I didn't catch it. Good call.
My simple response is "explain Obama." Our society is FAR more racist than it is sexist, but we have a black male making aims for the whitehouse. Not only is he making aims, but a large portion of the population (including most of the media) are in his corner. If the dislike of Hilary was simply "America hates her because she's a woman," why does that reasoning not apply to Obama at all?
I could go into your whole schoolhouse example of "when was the last ____ president," but I think my point is pretty clear.
Am I saying that race or sexism isn't a problem? No. Am I saying that Obama and Clinton are going to get a fair shake? Yes. They are going to get a fair shake in the same respect that they will have to make it through the fire the same way every other candidate will. Will they have people not voting for them because they are a minority? Yes. Will they have people voting for them specifically because they ARE a minority? Yes. Will they have smear campaigns against them? Yes. That's politics.
Again, I think it shows more of our racist tendencies.
Either way, I just don't see how hate for Clinton shows how sexist we are when there isn't nearly that hate level for Obama and the country is far more racist. That's pretty much the short of my post.
Second of all, don't you think the fact racism is less socially acceptable than sexism might have an effect on criticism of Obama that is obviously rooted in his race?
Of course. No one is going to get on TV and say "I hate Obama because he's black," but I imagine that no one would do that with the Clinton/woman thing either. What I'm addressing is the absolute mania surrounding Obama vs the hatred surrounding Clinton. The democratic populous is really making Obama a superstar, and its not doing that for Clinton. That's where I see the real flaw in the "people hate Clinton because she's female" rationale.
I'm personally not a fan of Clinton, but it's not because she's a woman. I don't like her because she doesn't seem to have any convictions. She seems as if she's the type of person who would gladly step on your head to advance. The whole Hot Coffee thing lost her a bunch of points in my book, the same way the Night Trap fiasco did for Lieberman. Added to that, she doesn't connect with people. That's important to a lot of voters.
Do some people not like her because she's a woman. Sure. I don't think it's the majority, though.
Maybe we need some clarification as to what "more" means. Do we mean there are more racists than sexists, or that racist attitudes have a greater effect on the lives of minorities than sexist attitudes have on the lives of men and women?
Hot Coffee? Really? I like videogames too, but I'm not going to let a minor event like that decide my vote.
Anyway, we're not talking about blatant displays of racism and sexism on par with, "I hate Obama because he's black," or, "I hate Hilary because she's a woman." After all, it was the criticism of qualities she possesses that are seen as assets or minor matters when displayed by men that brought sexism into this conversation in the first place. Namely, "She looks like she'll do anything to be President."
An equivalent of Obama would possibly be, "The guy will favor minority interests over more important issues."
Regardless, I'm having a hard time seeing your logic. Are you saying that, because Obama has gotten so much press, that racist attitudes will have no effect on whether or not he is nominated and possibly elected? That he is, somehow, immune to racism?
So racism exists, but doesn't effect Obama, and therefore sexism has no effect on Clinton either because sexism is less prevalent than racism and the two operate in the same way?
For the record, I think I'd be more inclined to vote for just about any other semi-well-known female Democrat over Clinton.
Though admittedly the only ones that spring to mind are Senator Pelosi, Delegate Norton of Washington D.C., and my state's Governor, Janet Napolitano.
Attacking GTA is free capital for any politician. You don't win points with me over it. Then to attack Hot Coffee and spew a bunch of misinformation regarding it makes you seem worse to me. It stinks of the Night Trap scandal, where after the fuss Lieberman kicked up, he finally admitted he had never seen the game.
No, no and no. "X will do anything to be President" is NOT something that is seen as a minor matter or even an asset to men in the race. If you think otherwise, look at John McCain. His "straight talk express" is a train wreck at this point because he went from idealist to maverick to someone who would do anything to be President.
My logic is simply this. If one says that our dislike of Clinton is primarily because of sexism, then it would only stand to reason that in as racist a society the US is, Obama would also fall to these same pitfalls. He's not though, so it would stand to reason that it is something OTHER than basic discrimination that is keeping people from her.
(I wasn't trying to turn this into a race vs sex debate. I was just using the race point as a counterweight against the original argument.)
Will I be happy with her as President? You bet.
I really don't buy this sexism buisiness. I don't doubt that there are some people who are against her simply because she is a woman with her personality. But with the offset of people who are for her just because she is a woman I doubt that the net effect of it is going to have a substantial effect. This may acount for some of the divergence in the opinion about her and the large amount of negativity, but I am somewhat dubious to the extent of that contribution especially given that she is courting the liberal side of the isle.
I dislike her primarily becasue she seems very evasive and vague even for a politician. I've never heard her give solid answers on anything.
Did you watch the first debate? She gave pretty solid answers on universal healthcare (instead of dumping money into programs that don't work, fix the programs if they can be salvaged, dump the ones that can't be fixed, and adequately fund ones with potential/actually work) and on her response if there were another terrorist attack on US soil (find the people responsible and respond swiftly and decisively against those involved with military force..............after getting international support and making sure we know who did it for sure meaning no "link between Iraq and al Qaeda" bullshit).
Nobody else gave more substantive answers than she to those questions and those answers are pretty specific. Also, if you haven't, you should attend one of her speeches. She is an impressive speaker, imho. She is very bright, forceful, and articulate. Perhaps she doesn't have Bill's charm but few do.
Edit: for clarity and intelligibility
I also think it's naive to think that a significantly huge portion of the criticism is due to her being a woman.
yeah. like has been said a ton of times already, there are tons of legit reasons to not like hillary as a politician that have absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman. on the other hand, one of the most important tools of the uninformed voter is a snap judgement, and unfortunately being a woman isn't going to help her in that regard (personally i think what pisses conservatives off a lot more than her gender is her husband).
i just hope that if she gets the nomination, we don't see the "you just don't like her because she's a woman" card played over and over and over.
As for Hillary - the two big issues are residual hatred from the nineties, and a general social resistance to a woman who plays a "man's game" without the fainting and curtsying of a Liddy Dole. She's very politically pragmatic, a little blunt and flat, and doesn't have the easy charisma of her husband. A lesser factor are the self-styled left-wing internet activists who don't think she's "liberal enough".
Basically, she has a lot of political strengths and great networks, but has what they call in politics very high "negatives".
Also, she really is pretty liberal, much more than her demeanor suggests. Not so much the touchy-feely pie-in-the-sky liberal, but a very pragmatic mechanistic "get money for medical care for kids" sort of liberal. Much more LBJ or Bill Clinton than Hubert Humphries or Adlai Stevenson. Honestly, I think she'd make a great president, but I think she'd have a lot of difficulty in the general election.
I think racism seems more prevelent for the exact same reason... because it is easier to see and often times comes off as more offensive.
1) Our presidential names since 1988 (if Clinton wins in 2008) would go: Bush, Clinton-Clinton, Bush-Bush, Clinton. There's a growing sense that we need *someone* in the high office that hasn't been in its orbit for decades.
2) Hillary voted for the war, Obama didn't. Edwards apologized for it, at least..
3) Hillary still has a 'vietnam radical feminist' past and it's not going away. Not that I think there's anything wrong with those three words, but when we focus elections on the culture wars and not on policy, we end up getting people like Bush. Hillary isn't divisive on a policy level, but she sure is on the patriotism-values-religion front, and it seems like this is a horrible time to relive those retarded flamewars.
4) Why nominate a liberal that conservatives despise? Why not find a consensus figure who might actually be able to get something done?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Anyone that is that addicted to power, to want political power so badly they are willing to overlook indescretions and infidelity by a person that is supposed to be your faithful partner through thick and thin, that is the absolute last person I want to have said power.
I dont care what side of her political issues you fall, that is to me the only real "issue" that is a dealbreaker, for me. To be that obsessive of political standing that your public face is completely ok with unusual uses of cigars, regardless of impeachment/lying under oath about it, all that ....just the pure and simple fact that A. You know your husband is cheating on you , and B. Being ok with that since it is politicaly advantageous for you to stay with him....I can't vote for someone with those morals. Which is a shame because I do think that the time is quite past due for a female president, as well as one that comes from a racial minority.
I think you're underestimating subconscious gender bias. I wouldn't say sexist, because that's hardly fair to all the real sexists, but gender roles are deeply ingrained into our culture. Just look at the classic surgeon riddle.
Er.
I'm not sure how appropriate this is. Do we know enough about the Clinton marriage that we can say it only held together for political expediency, or are you assuming she stood by Bill for political reasons because we've seen she's power-hungry, and then using that to prove that she is power-hungry?
Because last I checked, infidelity doesn't always necessitate divorce, even when it becomes public.
I mean, I don't know. But it seems plausible.
I love how Hilary Clinton is the only woman in the world who receives no sympathy when her husband cheats on her.
Regardless, I wouldn't expect any 60 year old man to turn down a chance to philander with a much younger woman, given the opportunity. That doesn't necessarily invalidate every marriage between elderly persons, though, does it?
Yeah but to me it is more of the "Do anything, say anything to get/stay in political power". And my personal politics is that is someone to be avoided. I would be much more impressed with someone, even if they were more to the right or left than I like, if they said " Here are my 3 to 4 core issues I want to accomplish in office, here is how I stand on a variety of the "hot button" issues, and I plan on only serving one term." To me that is someone who is focused on what a president is there to do, lead the country for 4 years, try to get some of their core issues accomplished but largely there to serve the public's interests rather than special interests. That person would get my vote over someone who was closer to my political ideology but stunk of career politician.
None of this has ANYTHING to do with her ability to govern and govern effectively.