Ah, the politics of berating.
I remember when one of our state reps had a significant advantage over the other candidates, because she was a woman and they all were men.
Sometimes it's good.
But, as noted, it is usually women who tend to not vote for women, because they let the perfect destroy the good.
(yes, I borrowed your RTID/ST2 language from your soon-to-die campaign ... even tho it didn't work)
amen. hot damn.
Yes. Thank you. If anything, this little whine-fest about Hilary playing the gender card is just convincing me to support her.
I think the expectation that she will play on her gender has been so strong in some quarters, that there was a massive reaction to even the appearance of doing so. Which she actually didn't. Thanks to YouTube, you don't have to just take the pundits word for it.
Now, prevaricating...that's a different matter.
I so hope she gets elected. Those misogynist a-holes will have a full-on heart attack and the world would be a better place twice over.
"Playing the ________ card" is the 21st century "You know how Those People/Women are."
Right on (though Hillary will govern like it's a "man's world" and not subvert any of the "patriarchal" traditions of war, exploitation, corporate control, etc. Still, our...son-of-a-bitch? is better than theirs). I liked Chris Rock's take on the is-America-ready-for-a-woman-president question: (I'm paraphrasing) women, you're 51% of the population! If black people were 51% of the population, we'd elect Obama, we'd have Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson as president, Oprah, Flavor Flav...
I'm sorry, but this whole discussion -- did she play the gender card, did they bait her, did she or they do this that or the other thing -- right on down to "eat some pork rinds and stfu" exemplifies everything I can't stand about Democrats or about the blogosphere.
There is no issue here. There's nothing to discuss. It's not a debating point. Neither point of view has any more gravitas than a fart blowing in the breeze.
And yet it is seemingly the only issue of importance for the Slog or their cohorts or for the Democratic Party.
You do realize that if you try to play the game this way in the general election you'll get torn to shreds, don't you?
dammit... i agree with fnarf again.
I just want to know why everyone refers to her as "Hillary" and not by her last name, like all the other candidates are referenced, even on NPR.
Yeah, but it's all the MSM will let us talk about.
Has anyone actually SEEN an article or video where they discussed the policy positions of ANY of the candidates?
And that - is worrisome.
I think that comes from the campaign.
@12 -- there was much discussion on these blogs about that, and what is appropriate. i think i prefer clinton, but hrc and the slog have gone with hillary. so, when in slog...
Wow. I used to think that political campaigns bore too much of a resemblance to high school cafeteria drama. This whole prolonged argument about what a couple of candidates just might have said about what Hillary might have subtly implied about what they said about her has totally changed my mind.
@12 - To distiguish her from Bill. Ferraro was Ferraro and Gregoire is Gregoire. And so forth.
Of all the smart capable women who could be president, HRC is the best candidate we can find? She's riding on her husband's coat-tails, pockets stuffed with corporate money, and committed to the status quo. And she's supposed to be the feminist hero? The pants-suits and the cackle aren't doing her any favors either.
I wish Ann Richards were still alive.
Ehm... Okay... Reporting on this meaningless BS is exactly what I would expect from you, Ms ECB.
Now go forth, find a real issue (if you can identify such a thing) and try your best not to reduce it to feminist blather.
I want Hillary to win. But I just gave Biden some money. I hope he winds up being the Veep candidate.
Amelia, child, if it weren't for all the "feminist blather" of the past, you'd be your husband's property right now.
Young women who take feminism for granted have no idea what they've got.
If you think this inane hall-of-mirrors blather has anything to do with real women's rights, you're beyond hope.
It's interesting that our first credible female presidential candidate is the wife of a former pres. But think about the history of women's progress in politics...most early women elected officials were appointed to fill out dead husband's terms.
Fnarf, do yourself a favor:
Fnarf, if you don't see a connection between the things being said about Hillary Clinton and women's rights, then you've been smoking something.
That's right Irean anyone who disagrees with you for any reason is against women's rights! How dare they question you!
Big Sven: you'd prefer a cheater and a plagiarist like Biden to the other possible vp candidates?
Ah yes, there is nothing more attractive to male voters (who I'm sure I don't need to point out make up the VAST majority of the voting public) than a man-hating, demeaning ultra-feminist.
Kudos to you!
You know, I could try to give an articulate response to your douchebag flame, but instead I'll just point out that there are three kinds of comments on the Slog:
(2) Genuine, though sometimes heated, dialog.
(3) Left-field attacks from assholes trying to impress themselves.
Please strive for more of (2), less of (1) and (3). Maybe less Coors Light before lunch? Thanks.
Sven - your candidate selection criteria seem to be wholly unlike mine. You forgive things that are dealbreakers to me and vice versa. If you have a reason for preferring Biden, despite his negatives, please share it.
For me the Biden stuff in '88 was like the Dean Scream in '04- a tempest in a teapot that was manufactured by people who didn't like the candidate. According to this...
Biden usually attributed that part of his stump speech to it's rightful author Neil Kinnock, but forgot to *once* and there happened to be a camera around.
On the college paper, he listed his sole source citation (from the Fordham Law Review) on his paper. He got an F; seems like an appropriate response to poor scholarship on his part. So it doesn't seem like cheating to me- cheating would have been to have pulled data from the Fordham piece without citing it.
Biden wasn't on my radar until the debate about a month ago, where I thought he gave the best answers to the questions. Combine that with the fact that I think partition (which he supports) is the best solution to the war in Iraq- that is, the one likely to kill the fewest number of Iraqi civilians, and I feel I have a bunch of reasons to support him.
I don't know what I think about the central argument of your nom de guerre, honestly. I think that it's important not to have a crook in the white house, but I feel like you can't rise to the level of the US Senate or a state governorship without at least dirtying your hands somewhat in the Money, Influence, and Lobbyist game. To restrict ourselves to only choosing candidates above any reproach (Kucinich, Gravel, and... ?) while our opponents hold no such restriction seems to put us at a great disadvantage. Put another way, I care more about getting the Rs out of the White House than I do about finding a morally unambiguous candidate. But I respect that your calculus may be different than mine.
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).