 | Maureen Dowd, winner of the 1999 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, became a columnist on The New York Times Op-Ed page in 1995. |
 | Frank Rich, an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times. His weekly 1500-word essay on the intersection of culture and news helped inaugurate the expanded opinion pages that the paper introduced in the Sunday Week in Review section in April 2005. |
 | Bob Herbert, an Op-Ed columnist for The New York Times since 1993. His twice a week column comments on politics, urban affairs and social trends. Prior to joining The Times, Mr. Herbert was a national correspondent for NBC from 1991 to 1993, reporting regularly on "The Today Show" and "NBC Nightly News. |
If you picked the negro, you'd be right! Yes, when Geraldine Ferraro was asked to cite a specific example of Obama or his campaign being sexist she said:
All the surrogates that they had out there, from the black journalists — you know, have you read Bob Herbert recently in the past six months? There wasn't one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary.Yes, black journalists are #1 on the guilty of sexism list. For anyone familiar with Ferraro and her history of bigotry this shouldn't be a surprise, and I'm sure you were able to pick which columnist she would single out. And honestly, he hasn't written nearly as many negative things about Hillary as the white woman or the white man, but he is the sexist one, because "There wasn't one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary". So that is what sexism is now, not having anything good to say about a divisive political candidate, even though there isn't a single example of gender having anything to do with anything he wrote. I guess by the same logic full-time Obama hating journalists like Taylor Marsh and Paul Krugman must be racist as hell, since that is the ONLY reason someone might not like someone or might not have anything good to say about them. Oh, and you know how Jon Stewart never has a single good thing to say about Bush? It is because Jon Stewart hates white men, he is racist and sexist! Do you see the ridiculousness of her "sexist" neo-McCarthyism? And it seems targeted against black men quite often, even with absolutely no evidence of even a single instance of sexism, she brands them "terribly sexist".
But to be fair, she doesn't only focus on black men, even though they are always the first on her chopping block. She also hates MSNBC's Tim Russert. For her second "example" of rampant sexism she again, doesn't point to Obama, she points to the "first debate" in which all of the candidates and the moderator, Tim Russert, "beat up" on Hillary. Okay, first, the first debate was NOT hosted by Tim Russert, neither was the second, third, forth, fifth or sixth. Russert didn't host a debate until around the 10th debate. And yes, Hillary was targeted by some of the candidates, which makes complete sense if you consider that at the time she was the frontrunner, she was dominating the primary, she was considered inevitable by the media and everyone else in the country, so of course the other candidates are going to focus on her, she was running with the ball, you have to tackle her. According to Ferraro this is sexism, even though Obama would have been piled onto if he was the frontrunner, even though the same would have happened to Edwards or Dodd or anyone else who stood between 7 other people and the nomination (there were other things, like her Iraq vote she refused to apologize for and her acceptance of money from lobbyists, which did set her apart for the other candidates). Again, no evidence of sexism, yet Ferraro makes the very serious claim that Obama and every other Democratic nominee is sexist. And Tim Russert's questions did not unduly target Hillary, you can read the transcript here if you'd like, or watch the video here. In fact, the FIRST QUESTION (OMG!!) went to OBAMA!! There was one testy exchange between Hillary and Russert over his second question to her, which was about foreign policy, and which she refused to answer. This exchange happened because she refused to answer a question during a debate for a ridiculous reason (which she later turned 180 degrees from), NOT because she was a woman. Again, absolutely no evidence of sexism, yet Ferraro claims men everywhere are out to get Hillary, and just because she is a woman. Oh yes, there is one odd exception to the rule though, because Ferraro gave FOX's own Sean Hannity a clean "he's not sexist" bill of health because apparently he just hates Hillary no matter what, and somehow Ferraro knows this has nothing to do with sexism. Yes, she picked one of the few people that you could make a good case against based on sexism, and she arbitrarily decides he isn't sexist.
Next, she actually points to something Obama said, which she had said before, and I had debunked before, hell, let me just quote myself:
Obama joked that Hillary had been acting like she was Annie Oakley, a famous female exhibition shooter in the Wild West, because she was doing a pander tour around Pennsylvania talking up how she went shooting with her granddaddy when she was a child, and talking about how much she loves guns, in between her drinking a beer and taking shots of whiskey. When asked by a reporter in response to this when the last time she fired a gun was she said it wasn't an relevant question to ask. Now is that sexist? Not at all. It would take a pretty big stretch of the imagination to make that sexist and offensive. It had nothing to do with her gender, it was all about how she was pretending to be "one of the people" when she clearly is nothing like her Annie Oakley persona. Anyway, not sexist.To Ferraro's comments this time Shepard Smith responded by asking "You see that simply as sexist?" (see, even people at Fox News think her branding anything and everything as sexist is ridiculous) Ferraro elaborated saying that if a male candidate had been running around doing the same thing, would someone jokingly try to say he was pretending to be John Wayne? The simple answer: yes. It had nothing to do with her gender, it was about who she is and how incredibly fake and out of character her "Annie Oakley" persona was. She grew up in a rich family, she went to all the best schools, had an ivy league education, she couldn't be further from the gun totin' crowd if she tried. That was why it was so funny, not because she was a woman. If Dennis Kucinich had been running around talking up his love of shootin' and throwing back shots someone would have probably joked that he was pandering, running around acting like she was John Wayne. This has NOTHING to do with sexism and everything to do with her ridiculous pandering.
Next she tries to paint Obama as a sexist for another non-sexist action, which I also wrote about previous:
After ABC's "debate", which saw Obama essentially being interrogated on every non-issue smear conceivable, for nearly an entire hour, Obama responded in a speech the next day saying that that was just how Washington was run, and that is the sort of thing politicians have to face from the establishment which seeks to distract from the real issues affect people. Then he said when they do this he just has to brush them off, and made a gesture as if he was brushing off dirt from his shoulders. Geraldine Ferraro apparently thought this was terribly sexist, even though it had absolutely nothing to do with women, and wasn't even about Hillary, it was just an articulation of his philosophy that when they pile on with distractions and attacks you just have to brush it off and keep going. Yet Ferraro tries to stretch that as being an example of Obama being sexist. Ridiculous.And I might add that that was a great example of a hit-job debate, something which Hillary has never been subjected to in this campaign. If Ferraro wants to complain about the "sexist" media singling out Hillary she might want to look at the racist double-standards the media has employed toward Obama in recent months, like going after him nearly nonstop for two months about comments made by his black pastor, when John McCain has a pastor who has said much more appalling and outrageous things but those never got so much as a mention, let alone put on continuous loop for two months. Or how about when Obama won 11 primaries in a row, making it nearly impossible for Hillary to come back, and yet the media continued to act like him and Hillary were tied. Many have commented on the fact that if Obama was a white man, or if he hadn't been running against Hillary Clinton, the race would have been over then. Now I can't say whether it was because of his race, or because of Hillary, but I'd suspect it was because his opponent was Hillary Clinton. Now they didn't give her favorable treatment because she is a woman, she didn't fail to vet her claims of superior "experience" because she is a woman, they didn't keep her campaign afloat for all these months by ignoring the math and pretending she still had a way to win because she is a woman, and she isn't considered a viable candidate because she is a woman--all of these unparalleled benefits almost certainly come from one source: the fact she is married to former president Bill Clinton. Without getting into how she rode his coattails her entire career, I'll just say that the media has been very gracious toward Hillary, and has at least in the last couple months been very negative toward Obama (especially Fox News, the only "non-sexist" network).
Anyway, Ferraro said that none of these "sexist" things seem all that bad in isolation, but when you put them all together they have had an "impact on this campaign", again, there is no evidence of that, of any sexism from Obama's campaign, or of any small acts of actual sexism from the media (which she didn't choose to cite here) having any measurable impact on the race. She lost for many reasons (a few can be found here, but there are many more), but none of them were sexism, sorry Geraldine. But it is funny she would mention how when you put all these little things together they spell "SEXISM", yet she apparently didn't think that the very real and blatant race-baiting coming from the Clinton campaign didn't add up to spell "RACISM", or that Ferraro's own history of bigoted comments against successful black men add up to spell "BIGOTRY" or "RACISM". No, it is only non-existent non-examples of "sexism" that are real and all equal Obama being "terribly sexist", in the bigoted, paranoid, hateful mind of Geraldine Ferraro.
I'd also like to take a moment to point out that when THREE big supporters of Hillary Clinton made actual very sexist comments about Hillary's strength and determination being attributable to masculinity, and in particular her possessing male genitalia (as if women can't be strong on their own so they must borrow testicles from men to be strong leaders), Ferraro, Hillary and her hardcore women supporters were silent. Not a damn word. Probably the most egregious examples of sexism from major political players in this election, and not a speck of outrage from any of these people, just because they were Hillary supporters. Which is a perfect example of how this has NOTHING to do with sexism or women, and EVERYTHING to do with political calculation, political games, so Hillary can either get ahead of get even. And Ferraro and Hillary and the others are willing to accuse Obama and Democrats of horrible sexism to achieve their political goals.
Every time she gets up in does this she sets the women's movement back another decade. She is making women look crazy, look paranoid and ultra-sensitive. She is making women look like poor losers, like they want to chance the rules when they don't win, when in reality that is only Hillary, and should never be conflated with all women. Yet that is what is happening when Hillary and Ferraro and her other women surrogates and hardcore women supporters go out on Fox News and other places and make the sort of comments they are making. Like it or not, at this point in history Hillary Clinton is acting as the standard bearer of what female politicians are like, and she is doing a lot of damage with the brand by acting how she is, and doing everything in her power to make it about gender and sexism. I don't want her to breed resentment. I don't want her to create a backlash against women. I don't want her actions to make it harder for the next female presidential hopeful to be taken seriously, to have the opportunity to step up and lead. Hillary is showing the country all the worst possible attributes in a leader, and she is trying to make herself the symbol of all women. She does NOT speak for all women. So please, if you are a proud woman and believe that Hillary doesn't speak for you, please make some noise, write some letters to the editor, get your voice heard, push back, because right now people like Hillary and Ferraro are hijacking your voice and using it for their own personal agenda, and when they have finally used it up and throw it back to you, it will be damaged by their actions. The time is now to make your real voice heard.
Update: And here are 10 reasons why women should unite around Obama.
Update #2: Bill Clinton is a sexist, by the criteria of Hillary and Ferraro. Granted you could call Bill sexist for many reasons, but here is the one that apparently matters: Bill has essentially said that Obama will be the nominee. What a misogynist! Doesn't he know that not believing Hillary can win in spite of all of the evidence to the contrary is one of the top 10 signs of rampant misogyny??! I definitely expect Hillary, Ferraro and Hillary's most loyal women supporters to denounce Bill's sexist trying to push her out of the race before she acknowledges defeat. Really...sure it is going to happen...wouldn't they be hypocrites if they didn't..?
17 comments:
Do you realize your using Clinton's first name while using Obama's last name in the same article is sexist and belittling? I don't disagree with what you have to say, but you are embracing sexist tactics. However much I disagree with Clinton, it's not because she's a woman, and I decry all the misogynistic commentary out there. There are plenty of things of substance to attack her on, and engaging in sexist tactics hurts all women. I'd encourage you to change your blog entry to remove the sexist elements.
Of for crying out loud!!! That is the most asinine thing I have ever heard!!! Wether they own up to it or not, there are two Clintons running for President, Hillary and Bill. So if you want to specify which one you are refering to you HAVE to use her first name. There is nothing sexist about that and attempting to make it out to be is pathetic! Nothing hurts a womans fight for equality more than those of you who insist on seeing a sexist agenda behind every single nook and cranny. Ever read the childrens story about "The Boy who cried Wolf"? If you continue to scream "sexism" every time someone you have a differing opinion with opens their mouth you hurt the credibilty of anyone with a legitimate complaint.
Thank you petwlkr, you beat me to it. That is exactly why I use her first name, it has absolutely nothing to do with her being a woman, or me not liking her. There is only one "Obama" I could be referring to, but "Clinton" could easily mean either Bill or Hillary, and in order to avoid confusion and to avoid having to use a full name every time, I just typically refer to her as Hillary. You may notice that I also don't refer to Bill as simply "Clinton" either, and that has obviously nothing to do with sexism either. And to be even more careful I usually don't refer to Bill Clinton as just "Bill", unless it is obvious I'm talking about him because I don't want him to be confused with Bill Richardson.
Petwlkr is absolutely right, there are two Clintons in this campaign, and essentially two running for president. For that same reason I generally refer to Hillary's campaign as the "Clinton campaign" because it is essentially a joint venture (look at Bill's full time campaign schedule if you have any doubts of that). Having said that, if Michelle Obama, whom I greatly respect, was in the same position, I would refer to her as Michelle, and Barack Obama as Barack.
I hope that clears it up. (And I should say that as silly as your concern about the name thing is [although I do understand where you are coming from], it is still a hell of a lot more valid than any of the "examples" of sexism put forth by Ferraro, Hillary or her surrogates.)
Ah, notice I can't stand Geraldine Ferraro but I still call her by her last name because there is only one.
Okay, I'm done. Thanks for reading!
The article was clearly about Hillary Clinton, and it would have been clear to use "Clinton" to refer to her. She could have said "Bill Clinton" if she was referring to him.
Why do you think it's acceptable to address a woman by her first name and her male opponents by their last names? The only reason to use her first name is in cases where use of her last name could confuse her with her husband; in these cases, she should be referred to as "Hillary Clinton" (or even H. Clinton). In an article about the candidates for president, it is clear which "Clinton" is being referred to.
I replied before your reply came up. I don't agree with your justification for using Clinton's first name in reference to her. You're writing about a presidential campaign and we all know who the candidate is. The fact her husband is playing a major role in the campaign is irrelevant.
I even have to wonder why it is a huge issue that Clinton's husband is playing a big role in her campaign. It seems that people have issues with her husband being involved, when they don't have issues with male candidates' wives being involved. Why focus only on her husband? Her daughter is also playing a huge role in the campaign as well.
All spouses of presidential candidates have been very important for at least the last couple of decades - even longer - Eleanor Roosevelt very much influenced her husband's decisions as president. If you're not questioning the role Michelle Obama plays in her husband's campaign, why question the role Clinton's husband is playing in her campaign? Obama's wife goes out and campaigns for her husband - if you don't have an issue with that, why do you have an issue with Clinton's husband campaigning for her? (an argument based on "she's not as involved in Obama's campaign" is not valid.)
To me, it seems like there's a double-standard, and a bit of naivete. Pretty much anyone should have expected Bill Clinton would play a huge role, acting in many ways as an advisor and advocate, in any campaign Hillary Clinton was in - he has a great deal of experience and in fact, they have been political partners for decades.
By the way, if you really feel you can only be clear by using "Hillary", then use "Barack" as well. There's no danger in who you are referring to with "Barack" being misunderstood.
I think it says something about an underlying bias, however subtle, that you (and many others) didn't choose to do this.
Are you seriously suggesting that Bill plays the same role in Hillary's campaign and has the same profile as Michelle does in Obama's campaign and Cindy McCain does in McCain's? You can't be serious. Bill is much more involved, he does many more events, he is in the media so much more than any other spouse, and he has the political status unrivaled by any candidate's spouse in history. Give me a break. There is absolutely no double standard here, there are clearly three main players in the Democratic Primary, Hillary, Bill and Obama, in no particular order (if that is the next thing you'll try to nitpick).
And you may have noticed that I actually referenced Bill in that article, so there could have been room for confusion had I referred to Hillary simply as "Clinton". And why should I have to start referring to everyone by their first name just because there is by necessity a single exception to my general rule of using last names? It is confusing to make the exception into the rule.
And like I said before, it obviously has nothing to do with sex because I don't refer to Bill as "Clinton" either, for the same reason. You may notice that Bill has no vagina, so sexism isn't the issue. Also I encourage you to look at my example of Ferraro again. Ferraro completely disgusts me and I have no respect for her whatsoever, but I don't consistently refer to her as "Geraldine" because there is no reason to use her first name. If I were sexist or just used the first names of people I dislike, I certainly wouldn't be calling her by her last name now would I?
So I'm sorry if it bothers you, but I will continue with the nomenclature I've been using. In general there are two Clintons, only one Hillary. Only one Obama, only one McCain, only one Ferraro.
It has nothing to do with sexism.
I'm also a bit confused by this comment by petwlkr:
"If you continue to scream "sexism" every time someone you have a differing opinion with opens their mouth you hurt the credibilty of anyone with a legitimate complaint."
Did I not say "I don't disagree with what you have to say"? Did you somehow miss that in the four sentences I wrote, to which you were responding?
Clinton needs to be attacked on issues of substance - nothing else, including not attacking her on the basis her gender. There's plenty of substance to criticize (and even if this wasn't the case, bias based on gender - or race - is never acceptable).
This is silly to castigate the author for using "Hillary". Hilllary Clinton calls herself Hillary! Look at all her posters!
Yes, Bill Clinton is playing the same role Michelle Obama plays.
They are both supporting their spouses in the way which works best for each of them.
Did you have a problem with Bill Clinton being involved in the campaigns of other presidential candidates? If not, why do you have a problem when it's his wife's campaign?
I could have told you way back when Hillary Clinton made her first run for the senate that Bill Clinton was going to be very involved in every campaign, including presidential, that she was in. His life has been politics. Until recently, he was widely regarded as one of the best at it. Additionally, she was very involved in his campaigns. Did you have a problem with that? If not, why not?
(Is there a double standard there?)
As much as some have speculated that Bill Clinton has (perhaps unconsciously) tried to undermine her campaign, I have rejected that, because she herself has done so many stupid things. I always thought Obama was the better candidate, but up until this year, I had a great deal of respect for Hillary Clinton.
I didn't follow her New York campaigns and so don't know whether her nastiness, racism, and disingenuousness are something she displayed in those campaigns. I frankly, didn't expect her to do most of the stupid things she has done since she started losing, however.
I am wondering why you believe that Michelle Obama is less involved in her husband's campaign than Bill Clinton is in his wife's campaign?
And I'm also wondering where exactly you draw the line - when is "involvement" too much "involvement"?
Michelle Obama is involved in the campaign in many ways that we likely do not know about. I am certain she and her husband have discussions on many issues, many of which are somehow connected to his statements about what he will do as a president. That helps him shape his ideas. She's also publicly said that her concerns for spending time with their daughters have limited the degree to which she publicly has "stumped" for her husband. In fact, that choice has greatly helped Obama's campaign, because he's able to spend more time away from their daughters than he likely would choose if she wasn't supporting him in this way.
I'm also certain that Bill Clinton is providing a great deal of advice on many fronts to his wife's campaign - perhaps in ways that are more public.
But I am pretty doubtful that Michelle Obama's involvement is any less than Bill Clinton's - although they each are likely providing support in different spheres, in ways that reflect each of their life experience and expertise. (I've even heard commentary that Chelsea Clinton's role is more important than Bill Clinton's role - I would speculate that her support is very, very important to Hillary Clinton and conceivably, even more important than Bill Clinton's support).
There is no double standard on my part, it is simply acknowledging the elephant in the room. The Clintons have been a political tag team from the start. That is in part why the Republicans have had such a dislike for her. They felt that she should have been content to busy herself with planning state dinners and redecorating the West Wing like all her predecessors. The idea that she had a ton of influence in policy making infuriated them. Those views are indeed sexist and I always admired her for stepping out of the box if you will and fighting back. The truth of the matter is though that you canNOT compare the influence that a two term former President is going to wield once he is "first spouse" with that of Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain. Neither one of these two ladies have any political aspirations. They will no doubt freely express their opinions and act as sounding boards for their husbands but that is hardly the same thing. There is the potential for a huge power struggle here when you have the "first spouse" having more input in the way the country is run than the Vice President. I don't believe our forefathers planned anything out about how we are to deal with this scenario. We will be in unchartered territory and it's not sexist to question how this situation is going to play itself out. You can't possibly believe that she is going to be able to remain unbiased on how best to deal with policies that Bill and to some extent herself are responsible for creating? No matter how flawed they may over time have turned out to be. For instance do you really believe that Hillary is going to make any real attempt to change NAFTA regardless of her assurances that she will? There is no way she can do that without it being a direct slap in the face to her husband and a repudiation of Bill's administration. Just ain't gonna happen. I have a ton of concerns about Hillary but none of them have anything to do with her gender and I really feel you are making a mountain out of a molehill by accusing someone of a sexual bias when all they did is refer to her in the same way she refers to herself on all her posters and bumperstickers. I was simply trying to point out that the more someone screams sexism or racism either one, the less it gets heard.
Wow, it is hard to keep up here. Listen, I'm not going to try to argue with you about the role of Bill vs other spouses in her campaign, if you honestly don't see the huge differences between Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama or Cindy McCain there is really nothing I can do to convince you. That is beside the point though.
I should have brought this up in the first place, but anonymous (a different one?) made the point for me, that Hillary calls herself Hillary. How can I be attacked for calling her Hillary when she has branded herself as just "Hillary" since the very beginning. Look at her buttons, her bumper stickers, her signs, her shirts, they don't say "Hillary Clinton" they say "Hillary". That is simply how she has branded herself to voters, so voters who actually call her what she wants them to call her are sexist? I think not. She was very purposeful in how she branded herself, not as a Clinton, not as Bill's wife, she wanted to blaze her own trail, and so she wanted "Hillary" to be her identity. Whether or not she pulled it off is of course up for debate, but nevertheless, because of this alone you have no basis to accuse me of sexism, whether it be conscious or unconscious.
On top of that you can pile my original arguments about trying to limit confusion when talking about multiple Clintons, which I think was more than enough to prove no double standard.
And let me add that I am a feminist, and I am very much aware of these issues, and I greatly respect women and advocate for their rights and equal opportunities, abilities, everything. When I started this blog I made a conscious decision of how to refer to Hillary and others, I considered everything you brought up. I do realize these subtleties, and I would react the same way if someone was indeed showing a double standard between a man in a woman, but that isn't the case, and I am most definitely not biased against women in any way, if anything I'm biased against men. I have to say one of the most disappointing parts of this campaign is how successfully Hillary has shattered any illusion of feminine moral, temperamental, or intellectual superiority. I have the utmost respect and faith in the abilities of women, and as I have mentioned in a few of my posts this is part of the reason I think it would be a huge mistake for her to be the first woman president, because she would set a horrible example. This is also why I have been reacting so strongly to her most recent gender-baiting, because I'm afraid of the backlash women might face for her going so over the top.
Anyway, I hope this settles it, because it sounds like we pretty much agree on everything, so it seems silly to argue about something like this when Hillary markets herself as Hillary, and when there a completely logical and consistently applied rule that led me to refer to her and Bill as I do. It has nothing to do with sexism, but I'm glad you raised the issue because I think it is important to discuss these things, in a reasonable manner, and I'd rather have an opportunity to address it instead of someone just assuming that I refer to her as Hillary because I hate women.
Anyway, take care.
Regarding Petwlkr's statement: "There is the potential for a huge power struggle here when you have the "first spouse" having more input in the way the country is run than the Vice President."
Eleanor Roosevelt had far more influence over the way the country is run than did FDR's VP; so did Jacqueline Kennedy. VPs historically have been figureheads (have you ever heard Tom Lehrer's song "Whatever became of Hubert"?). Back during the Clinton/Gore presidency, I read commentaries regarding how Gore was the first VP to have any kind of real role in the administration!
Bill Clinton's potential role in running the country is FAR, FAR down the list in the arguments I would make against Hillary Clinton getting the nomination.
He doesn't have any political aspirations (although I guess he could run for senate, house, or state government, should he want to) - it's Hillary Clinton who has the aspirations. That's not to say I think he wouldn't have influence - obviously he would. I don't, however, think the two Clintons are so far different in their political views and personal philosophies that it really matters - if he were to die tomorrow, I wouldn't feel any better about Hillary Clinton becoming president. I'm far more frightened of the person she became publicly over the last few months than than I ever could be of her husband's influence.
As for how Hillary Clinton refers to herself: it doesn't matter. Even if you aren't referring to her by her first name (while referring to male opponents by their last names, out of sexist reasons), many in the media are doing that very thing for very sexist reasons.
It has the potential to very (or not so) subtly influence the reader who might be inclined to have sexist views.
No, it's not something I'm going to go out and spend hours protesting, but these very subtle things are often, most powerful in terms of influencing society.
Petwlkr said:
"There is no way she can do that without it being a direct slap in the face to her husband and a repudiation of Bill's administration."
Hmmm - seems like it would be a good way to get back at him for all his past misdeeds.
Hillary Clinton wouldn't undo NAFTA because she believes in it (as I said, she and Bill have very similar political views). There are other policies she wouldn't undo as well that weren't put in place by her husband - and she wouldn't undo them, because she believes in them.
Whatever I think of her, I don't think she's a puppet. If she was, we could blame her recent behavior on her handlers (and then I'd have no respect for her for not being her own person!). Instead, I believe she's fully responsible for the idiocy, racism, etc. she's been propagating.
By the way, I have never had any doubts that women could be just as calculating, nasty, idiotic, and self-serving as men. I just didn't expect Hillary Clinton would demonstrate it so well.
Does Lyndon, recalling when he was VP,
Say "I'll do unto you like they did unto me"?
Do you dream about staging a coup?
Hubert what happened to you?
Ok, one last thought. It appears we are all closer to being on the same page than it originally seemed. My initial comments about seeing a sexual agenda behind every nook & cranny had more to do with the fact that I had just seen Geraldine Ferraro's delusional tirade on Fox, than anything you actually said in your post. I should have made that clear and I apologize for failing in that respect. I am just so sick of all the Hillary supporters who try to turn every single nuance of Obamas campaign into some kind of personal afront to women in general. I honestly believe they are hurting the feminist movement with their actions. Lastly I have to say I don't believe Bill hasn't got any political aspirations. He craves the spotlight and is addicted to the power. There is every reason to believe that he is viewing her run at the White House as HIS chance at a third term. Whether or not we should allow the spouse of an elected leader to wield such immense political clout is an arguement for another day. Goodnight all.
Post a Comment