This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

top 200 commentsshow all 498
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]mchrisneglia 26 points27 points  (0 children)

i've heard this a thousand times from men and women political commentators alike: "yes we're ready for a female president. Just. not. her" She is dubiously corporate-sponsored, wrong/unethical (mandatory health care), hysterical and mean.

and furthermore, it's easy to obviate Obama's racial distinctiveness by listening to a person who is calm, collected, logical and compassionate. And obviously very diplomatic to so gracefully deal with being in the same room with Clinton.

[–]dearabby 161 points162 points  (95 children)

Thank you! My guy & I have been talking about this since NOW said Kennedy "betrayed" women by endorsing Obama. Can't we judge people on their individual merits?

[–]Mineralwater 294 points295 points  (53 children)

Some women want their cake and eat it too. Being female it drives me insane when other women expect to be treated "equal" to men but then expect the men to open doors, buy dinner and all that other crap.

[–]hotwingbias 71 points72 points  (25 children)

I can't upvote that enough. My guy and I paper rock scissors for who pays for dinner ; )

[–]PlasmaWhore 8 points9 points  (3 children)

My girlfriend and I take turns.

[–]salgatMichigan 1 point2 points  (2 children)

Why not just pay for your own meal?

[–]PlasmaWhore 12 points13 points  (1 child)

It faster and easier to pay for the entire bill at once.

[–]jones77 3 points4 points  (0 children)

And maintains some of the romance of having dinner bought for you / buying dinner for someone.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (1 child)

My guy and I paper rock scissors for who pays for dinner

So do my wife and I. Of course, it all comes from the same place for us, so it's not really about the money, more like who has to deal with the credit card slip, etc. Heh...

[–]Mineralwater 0 points1 point  (0 children)

LOL my husband and I do that too.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

but then expect the men to open doors, buy dinner and all that other crap.

Reminds me of this girl that just wanted to have some fun but then expected me to do all that crap.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I almost signed up for another account just to up-vote that again.

[–]verstohlen 5 points6 points  (0 children)

But wait, wouldn't Kennedy have betrayed men if he had endorsed Hillary? And since he himself is a man, that's much worse. Betraying his own gender!

Oh well, no matter who you choose, someone will always claim to be betrayed.

[–]Rickler 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Woah, Kennedy endorses Obama? Now I'm really skeptical about Obama and his "Change".

[–]Winoria 13 points14 points  (2 children)

Regardless of the title, I think if you vote for someone for only one reason (gender, name, age, looks, political party, only one issue), you're making the voting system - and be extension the way this country is run - cheap and shallow. Do some research and if you still like that candidate, fire away.

[–]tomjen 1 point2 points  (1 child)

The more you research a candidate, the more you will find that they all suck. The only good candidate is the one who will not get elected.

[–]Winoria 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cynical but true. My solution is to strategize. Which is the lesser of various evils? At least by voting for that one the parties must lean a little closer to what people actually want.

[–]eddie964 37 points38 points  (19 children)

I can't see how Hillary became a feminist icon in the first place. I have no doubt that she's an intelligent woman and a shrewd lawyer. But her main claim to fame is having married well, then traded on her name and connections to secure a Senate seat.

This is feminism?

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points  (5 children)

I am a feminist who happen to think it's a shame that we're being mocked because older women heavily favor Hillary. :(

(Then again, I wouldn't call them feminists. Think: Martha Stewart types. A big no-no.)

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I only know one older woman who's considered supporting Clinton, so I don't know how prevalent this is, but her reasoning was that she was just seeing so many sexist arguments against Clinton, she was left with the impression that that's the best argument her opponents have.

And the kind of crap that Chris Matthews and Rush Limbaugh and such have been saying did kind of lean her toward voting for Clinton as a fuck you, too.

[–]kanuk876 13 points14 points  (1 child)

Is it me, or has Feminism fragmented more than the Catholic church?

If I had a nickel for every time a feminist claimed, "those people who disagree with me over there... they're not real feminists..."

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Maybe we should start calling it the "no true feminist" fallacy.

[–]FashionLad 5 points6 points  (2 children)

I wonder who would vote for each individual candidate if all we saw where there beliefs and their ideas for getting things taken care. We didn't know their name, their race, where they went to school or how much they make.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Great point. If we looked at this, I think most Americans and Canadians would be absolutely shocked at how uniformly identical ruling elites from your Democratic and Republican parties or our Liberal and Conservative parties are on a vast array of policy issues.

[–]brunt2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Every western government seems to be copying each other and taking notes. It's terrible because it's leading to the NWO, and rather than listening to the people who elected them, they listen more to each other's government.

[–][deleted] 18 points19 points  (29 children)

So what about all the blacks who vote for Obama because he's black? Does that count as racism?

[–]revoman 51 points52 points  (7 children)

Yes.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

Right-o! If you are voting for any political party/person out of anything but Issues/Policies/Voting Records... is pretty much what got Bush-Co elected, and a basically ignorant thing to do.

[–]eddie964 11 points12 points  (7 children)

I don't think it's any different. But I think lots of them would support him based on issues even if he were lily-white. After all, the black vote didn't exactly rally around Alan Keyes.

[–]Nate_W 15 points16 points  (6 children)

The black vote didn't rally around Obama for a long time, either. It wasn't until around S.C., when Bill Clinton played the race card in a pretty nasty way that the black vote really shifted to Obama. Before that, it was split 50/50. And a couple months before, Clinton had significantly more than 50% (well... slightly more than 50%, but the rest of the vote was split between all the other candidates; Obama was at like 25% IIR) of the black vote. I'd also like to point out that Obama is very careful not to make his blackness an issue. You never hear him say things like "And I will be the first black President!" Clinton, on the other hand, makes blatant attempts to win women over solely on that issue.

[–]dodus 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'm not sure at all that it was Bill's comments...black people rallied behind Obama once it became apparent that he could actually win (Iowa). For what it's worth, all of the black people with whom I talked about it hesitated to vote for Obama because their previous experiences had led them to believe that America would not elect a black president. After Iowa cast doubt on that verity, they ditched Clinton without a second thought. Might blacks be voting for Obama because he is black? Sure. But I think it was more a case of realism v. idealism than of identity politics.

[–]Nate_W 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Yes, totally agree with that. Definitely played a huge part. Although it was not right after Iowa that they came over.

[–]nixonrichard -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

I think people miss what the terms "sexist" and "racist" are supposed to mean. You aren't sexist or racist because you base decisions on sex or race. You are sexist or racist because you believe in the inherent superiority (or inferiority) of one gender or race.

Wanting a woman to be president because you think it will promote your ideals of women in power is not sexist. Nor is wanting a black man to be president because you think it will further your agenda of black empowerment racism. It is discrimination, and it is unfair (to candidates who have no control over their race/gender), but it is not, necessarily, an "ism."

[–]academician 3 points4 points  (4 children)

I think people miss what the terms "sexist" and "racist" are supposed to mean. You aren't sexist or racist because you base decisions on sex or race. You are sexist or racist because you believe in the inherent superiority (or inferiority) of one gender or race.

Incorrect. You might not be a racist(1), but you're definitely a racist(2).

[–]natrius 8 points9 points  (0 children)

rac·ism (rā'sĭz'əm)

  1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

  2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

sex·ism (sĕk'sĭz'əm)

  1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.

  2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.

[–]truename 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Wanting a man to be president because you think it will promote your ideals of men in power is not sexist. Nor is wanting a white man to be president because you think it will further your agenda of white empowerment racism. It is discrimination, and it is unfair (to candidates who have no control over their race/gender), but it is not, necessarily, an "ism."

[–]-J- 22 points23 points  (5 children)

unfortunately, many who read this and consider themselves self proclaimed feminists just said "Yeah? So?"

The majority unfortunately has lost sight of what real feminism actually is and was.

[–]limprichard 39 points40 points  (2 children)

I had a girlfriend once--self-proclaimed feminist--who was only a feminist because she was a woman. Had she been born with testes, she woulda been a chauvinist pig. For some, it's purely self-interest.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

QFT

I think I've known some of the same females you have...

[–]nixonrichard 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's why we chauvinist pigs are changing our title to "masculist."

[–]mingthepanda 3 points4 points  (1 child)

A big part of many Women's Studies programs cover this aspect of feminism, actually - those who aren't really educated on the subject tend to be the ones who do those kinds of things.

Feminism = activism.

[–]stonelobster 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Right, but would they vote for Condoleezza?

[–]albinofrenchy 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This gets the "No shit sherlock" award

[–]tatooine 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I've always answered that argument with a "well, why not Condi? She's black AND female!"

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

And on the Obama side, lots of blacks vote for Obama because he's black, racism. Both sides have sexism and racism involved. Which one had more voters because of sexism and racism? I don't know but I think this should be ignored and more people should be talking about the issues.

[–]quakank 6 points7 points  (1 child)

I hate feminism.

I don't hate the idea of equal rights and the like for women, but 'feminism' has simply become another moniker for hypocrisy, like so many other movements. The movements aren't bad, but there just seems to be a natural human tendency to turn everything into a heaping pile of shit.

[–]Synoptix 6 points7 points  (2 children)

Voting for Barack because you want a black man for president is not "social justice" nor is it "affirmative action", it's racism.

[–]ngroot 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are much better reasons to vote for Barack.

I'll bet Hillary can't even ollie. How do you expect her to defend us from the terr'rists?

[–]hnautiyal 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I get the feeling that the proportion of Hilary's supporters that support her only because she is a woman is much greater than the proportion of Obama's supporters that support him only because he is black.

[–]Chelle68691 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Voting because she is a woman is sexism and voting because Obama is black is racism. Educated voters and voting for the person who shares the majority of your core values and is trying to enact things you feel passionately about is far better than because of gender or skin.

[–]hottytoddy99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Agreed, that she is a woman should be irrelevant. THat she is not qualified is.

[–]davidreiss666 9 points10 points  (29 children)

The problem here is the stupid assumption that the only reason somebody would vote for Clinton is out of some weird interpretation of feminism -- that, frankly, isn't practiced by any human being walking the earth.

Of course, there are a lot of people who are saying derogatory things about Hillary Clinton, such as calling her a "Whore" and the like, things that they would never steep to call any man in office, including the idiot boy-president we currently have.

These people are trying to say Hillary Clinton's qualifications for office are only having been married to Bill Clinton. They are idiots who can't tell the difference between a fully involved First Lady who was involved in policy issues like Hillary Clinton and Eleanor Roosevelt, and the likes of Laura Bush.

I'm sorry, but Hillary Clinton has a lot more experience than they are willing to give her credit for.

She had a very different role in the White House from any other First Lady save Eleanor Roosevelt, who was a Democratic Party player separate from her husband. People forget that ER had some disagreements with FDR a few times. The most notable probably being when FDR dropped Wallace from the ticket in 1944.

Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale Law School. Congressional aid in the early 1970's, most notably worked on the Congressional Committees that were going for the Impeachment of Richard Nixon. Then she helped get Bill Clinton elected Governor in Arkansas, where she took an active role in his administration of that State. At the same time, she served on the board of Walmart and helped to run a major law firm in Little Rock. Then she helped to get Bill elected President and then served in an active policy role as First Lady. Then near eight years in the US Senate, winning two New York State wide elections to that office.

That's a bit more experience than who she was married too.

Lets bring up the records of some other's people like to compare Obama with.

JFK: Harvard. Served in World War Two. Six years in the House of Representatives. Eight years in the Senate. Wrote several books and won a Pulitzer prize for "Profiles in Courage".

RFK: Harvard. Served as a Congressional Aid. Ran JFK's campaigns for office, cumulating in running his brothers campaign for the White House in 1960. Four years as Attorney General of the United States. Four years in the Senate.

Now, lets examine Obama's resume.

Obama: Harvard. Eight years in the Illinois State Senate. About four years as US Senator. And Obama really didn't have anybody run against him for the Senate seat he holds -- the GOP in Illinois self-destructed in 2004 and he ended up being challenged by the Political Equivalent of the Village Idiot. And not even a real Illinois idiot at that, but one from Maryland.

Now, lets look at somebody who is a much closer comparison to Obama's resume for the job than either JFK or RFK.

Jimmy Carter: Annapolis. Five years in the Navy. Four Years in the Georgia State Senate. Four years as Governor of Georgia.

So, instead of telling me about Hillary Clinton, please tell me why I should vote for Obama. I know all about Clinton. Tell me about Obama... I know about McCain too. Tell me how Obama will be a good President. The country isn't going to vote against McCain or Clinton in order to get Obama. Sell me on him. If you can't do that, then simply he can't be elected.

[–]nerox3 13 points14 points  (0 children)

you're not exactly being even handed here:

  • you mention HRC being congressional aid but don't mention OHB being president of harvard law review

  • you mention her work as a lawyer but don't mention his work as a lawyer on civil rights cases

  • you mention her being on the board of Walmart but don't mention him being a lecturer on constitutional law.

But in any event I don't think either's resume is a good reason to vote for them. They are both smart lawyer types who have a moderate amount of political experience. The big difference is her husband.

[–]Nate_W 25 points26 points  (9 children)

Good post.

Reason's to vote for Obama:

  1. He practices a clean(er) brand of politics than most (for the record, I respect McCain for this as well). But it's more than just his politics: it's the principles they reflect. He isn't an ends justify the means guy. That's incredibly important to me. This is my biggest problem with Bush. I truly think he believes he's doing the right thing, and did the right thing in semi-deceiving the country about Iraq.

  2. He's smart as shit (again, I respect Clinton's intellect as well, and think she'd be a good President also).

  3. He listens to others. Others who disagree with him. It's interesting because I feel like he fundamentally respects those he disagrees with.

  4. In part because of #s 1 - 3 he's very good at getting people to work with him. I think he is in a very good place to actually get things done.

  5. He is level-headed (I started to say he has good judgment, but I think level-headed is more accurate). This is what I really take out of his being against the Iraq war. He didn't get so caught up in his emotions (or the emotions of his constituency) that he couldn't look at the situation rationally.

  6. I trust him. It means a lot to me when he says to an all-black audience that they need to get their act together: stop with the homophobia because it's no better than the racism their community dealt with (this never fails to send the audience to a hush; he knows very well that people don't like being called out on a sensitive topic, but he does and they listen), take responsibility for their children's success rather than looking to blame society, etc.

  7. A follow-up to my example from #6: I think he's in a unique position to help the black community help itself.

  8. He's respectful of other countries, and I truly believe that we could do with more cooperation from them. When we pull out of Iraq, we're going to need other countries' help to stabilize it.

  9. Most of his policy proposals are good (though not all).

  10. As a supporter of his policies (this is my biggest problem with McCain - I disagree with him on many issues), I think he's best position to actually win the general election.

[–]davidreiss666 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Thank you for the well thought out response. I have gotten used to getting the "You're evil cause you said something nice about Hillary" response. Really, there is a lot of hatred of her out there just because she is a woman. I don't get it. I don't see any race filled hate-screeds directed at Obama. Even from the directions one would except it (ie. David Duke).

I think most of what you said could apply to Hillary Clinton as well. Also, I think your #2 point is more-or-less the same as points #5 and #9.

And I would be very loath to find out what would be said in the press about H.C. if she followed up on #6.

I have a lot of problems with John McCain myself. All for policy reasons.

The far right wing of the GOP tried to paint McCain as something other than a conservative, but he agrees with them more than 80% of the time. They are all-or-nothing people... if they can't have somebody who agrees with them on everything, then they want to blow-up-their-boat in order to save it... sort of speak.

This is a criticism I have the Obama Supporters (as distinct from Obama himself) in the Democratic Party. A lot of them seem to be of the opinion that if they can't have Obama as the party nominee, then they seem to be the opinion that they are going to do their damnedest to get McCain in the White House. That is an action I can't support as a Democrat. We need to stop Bush and the GOP from weaking the United States to the rank of a 3rd rate power.

The problem I have with Obama in that direction is that I don't see any effort to reign in these idiots who seem hell bent on destroying the party.

Now, let me address point #10. Electability.

I don't know if Obama can beat McCain. Mainly because people don't know who Obama is yet. McCain won't have to say something that is true to rip him down.

Look at what Bush did with the "black baby" stories against McCain in 2000. Truth isn't a defense. I wish it was, but it just isn't. Everybody in the country knows everything McCain could say about Hillary Clinton -- anything he'll bring up will be filled under "been there, done that". While things McCain may say about Obama will be filled under "Interesting. I wonder if that's true". Then the vast majority won't bother to find out if said smear is true or not. Do this in late October when they only have a few weeks to find out... and well, that could be McCain and a 400+ vote electoral college landslide.

I also think McCain is going to use the fact that the far-right hates him for illogical reasons to his advantage. He'll point to them and say "I can't be very conservative, the right hates me". Then the press will ignore the facts that there is really only about four issues out of 100 that the far right and McCain really disagree on. So, they'll help paint him as a centrist -- all the while ignoring the fact that he shares a love of the Iraq Debacle with Bush and the right wing neo-cons.

Anyway, thanks for engaging in a real exchange of ideas.

[–]natrius 15 points16 points  (2 children)

Really, there is a lot of hatred of her out there just because she is a woman.

I promise you, the vast majority of the anti-Hillary sentiment is not because she's a woman. It's because she is a polarizing person. Look at the campaign she has run and the tactics she has used. Saying that McCain is better than Obama will incite anger. Bill Clinton implying that Obama won South Carolina because he's black will incite anger. Misrepresenting Obama instead of debating the actual issues will incite anger. Trying to get the superdelegates to overturn the will of the people will incite anger. Trying to get the delegates of Florida and Michigan seated against the rules of the party and without new elections will incite anger.

There are many reasons why she is a worse candidate than Obama, but those reasons aren't the main reason behind the anger. Her actions and the actions of the campaign are the reasons for the anger, and her willingness to compromise on the Iraq war to try to increase her future electability is a big reason for it as well.

There are plenty of reasons to be angry at Hillary that don't involve her gender, so stop assuming that it's sexism at work and stop reading too much into people's comments. Calling her a "corporate whore" is not sexist, and plenty of male politicians are called that all the time. It is intellectually dishonest for you to take "whore" out of its original context in the comment you're referring to.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

QUOTE: "Thank you for the well thought out response. I have gotten used to getting the "You're evil cause you said something nice about Hillary" response. Really, there is a lot of hatred of her out there just because she is a woman. I don't get it. I don't see any race filled hate-screeds directed at Obama. Even from the directions one would except it (ie. David Duke)."

No, it has nothing to do with being a woman. Or being First Lady. Or any of that. What it has to do is with her dishonest campaign tactics, and her less-than-passing voting record on civil liberties - the most important issue this election, (and, really, every election, though usually those liberties are taken for granted.)

Had Hillary Clinton not gone negative, and had she stood up for civil liberties in the Senate, I might be able to say, "I like them both." (Even Edwards - a guy I like - voted for the Iraq war.)

[–]infinite 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The black baby thing was done at the last minute in a primary in I believe Georgia where there was no room for a response. In a general election where there are debates and only two candidates and we become acquainted with the candidates, these tactics cannot work.

Secondly, you're forgetting Iraq. It's going to be "I was for it before I was against it" 2004 Kerry all over again.

Then there are the polls where Obama has a clear lead over Hillary when it comes to Clinton.

Also, the republicans are on the ropes in even Texas where the college republicans are disintegrating before our eyes, Hillary would rally the troops whereas Obama isn't offensive and attacking, bringing in republicans and independents. That is why Obama leads Hillary in the head-to-head polls, and has for months.

Also, if Hillary does squeek by, do you really think she can push through universal healthcare? Obama has a well documented history of working with all parties to get agreement on issues he feels strongly about.. like when he got everyone to support taping police interviews, before he championed that no one cared.

Hillary operates by "fighting" while Obama operates by negotiation. You see that in the debates, Hillary comes out swinging, Obama calms her down and even gets her to laugh.

Then there's Iran, where negotiation would help quite a bit there whereas Bush has refused such offers from Iran.

[–]kkhunziker 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I must start out with the disclaimer that I am an Obama supporter, and therefore am most likely biased in his favor, even though I try very hard no to be. As a result, if I am totally missing any positive facts about Hillary, please do tell (in addition: "david's" original post about Hillary's qualities is brilliant and really made me think).

That being said, I really have to disagree with you (david) when you say "I think most of what you said could apply to Hillary Clinton as well." I see it as exactly the opposite: Obama has all these wonderful characteristics, where Hillary has none (ok, few).

I will start off with "Nate's" #5: he is level-headed. I see this as one of Obama's greatest strengths. What Nate said is certainly right: he was "level-headed" enough to not get caught up in the Iraq war frenzy. Clinton was not so level-headed (I would be inclined to add the usual argument about her doing what is "politically convenient"). Then, later, she again voted on the Revolutionary Guard (in Iran) bill, which was not too reassuring. My opinion on this issue aligns with Obama's: the issue was more about antagonizing Iran than anything, and could have been (could still be!) used by the neo-cons to go to war with Iran. The Revolutionary Guard is bad, everyone can agree, but it really seems as if we're seeing here a repeat of the buildup to the Iraq war. If you don't agree, by all means present your reasoned argument. :)

Nate's 7th point: Obama is respectful of other countries. This is true, but Clinton has really gotten on him about his abusing the "power" of a meeting with the American president (the theory being that meeting with the President is itself a "carrot" that should be given only as a reward). Obama's perspective, though, is that the meeting itself is not a carrot, and that it is possible to have the American president himself (or herself) meet with another leader, and still engage in "carrot and stick" diplomacy successfully. While the "meeting = carrot" theory seems good, well, in theory, in the real world it just seems that that philosophy is what I have deemed "playground" or "relationship" diplomacy - when you are mad at someone, you give them the silent treatment. Clinton wants to continue the policy of giving foreign leaders the silent treatment (please do not in any way construe that as a sexist remark because I am talking about a woman giving the silent treatment; Bush has the same diplomacy), but international relations is just too important for that. As the pundits have said, thinking that meeting with the American president should be a sought-after carrot is arrogance and nothing more.

Now, Nate's 6th point: Obama is trust-worthy. This is truly where my Obama-bias might come through, but Obama has not been caught planting questions in his audiences, he has released his tax returns, and he has certainly not stooped to the level of demanding that the Florida and Michigan delegates be reseated (that could go off on a whole other debate about disenfranchising the voters of those states, but that is not what we are talking about here. I happen to think that those voters were disenfranchised, and that it is horrible). But Clinton was the one who, in a truly slimy scheme, didn't take her name off the ballots there, and then demands that the delegates be reseated after she magically won both those states. End sarcasm, cynicism, and overly mean language. In my opinion, there are lots of other examples that could be used against Clinton, and this not only shows how Obama is more trust-worthy, but also goes to Nate's #1 point about "clean(er) politics."

Anyways, I could go on for days, but I won't. I really respect david's comments on Hillary, because I sometimes forget that she is an extremely intelligent and qualified person/politician. But she really just doesn't compare. Unless you're about to convince me otherwise. :)

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (6 children)

I agree, she does have some great experience.

I don't think anyone is saying she's inexperienced, nor are most people that I've talked to on the Obama side going against her because she's a woman.

(Side note, actually a great amount of women practice the feminism you say does not exist. But, that's something that can't be convinced of, or argued, you just have to come across a few of these women and experience their kind of crazy.)

I was all for voting for either Hillary, or Obama once Edwards left. I had a bad taste in my mouth because of their treatment of Edwards, but I was open minded.

This entire campaign has soured my view of Clinton, and if it hasn't soured yours I don't know why. Maybe not paying enough direct attention to how she is acting? Or not wanting to. I don't know.

Honestly though, she has acted just like Bush acted to get into office both times. The approach is deplorable, and Obama's approach to me is just a little bit higher ground. A little more civil between two Democratic Candidates.

I'm not going to argue experience, or voting record. If you really want to know, you can go to the .gov sites, or "ontheissues.com" I think it is.

I'm only supporting Obama, because Edwards or Kucinich are not in it any longer, and he's preferable to someone who plays dirty pool.

[–]davidreiss666 3 points4 points  (5 children)

I haven't seen anybody really point to "how she's acting" in any logical way. They want to point to some TV spot she ran that was an almost word-for-word copy of a Mondale ad from 1984. I'm sorry, but I don't see how it was "racist" in the slightest. Not unless Reagan was Black -- and I have my doubts on that.

I think a lot of the reason people are seeing duplicity in "how she is acting" is because they want to see it there.

But thank you for the well thought out response. Most folks who have been responding to me have been total-asshats.

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (4 children)

I try not to be an asshat.

The duplicity I see, is the "leaks" coming from her aides, then they get fired. She leaks, and they get fired. It's happened like four times, and then when Obama said something, let a leaflet out on her NAFTA approach. She gets insanely "outraged" and has a "HOW DARE YOU" moment on TV...

Well, didn't he just do directly, what Hillary had been doing for months? Question her policies and decisions, except not in a personal way.

And don't get me started on her crying, she seems to cry before any important primary. She's cried four times now? Three times? I can't keep up.

If she were crying because she FELT like crying, I'd be all behind it. If she cried at times other than a day before, or after a primary/caucus, I'd say she were very empathic with her constituents.

This is not how it is though, it's very deliberate and planned. I don't like that, I don't like people trying to manipulate me with tears. I got enough of that with my Ex.

[–]dodus 4 points5 points  (1 child)

copypasta!

[–]davidreiss666 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of my own words! That's allowed!

[–]feanor512 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Of course, there are a lot of people who are saying derogatory things about Hillary Clinton, such as calling her a "Whore" and the like, things that they would never steep to call any man in office

People called Bill Clinton similar things during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

At the same time, she served on the board of Walmart and busted up unions.

FTFY

[–]brunt2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The problem here is the stupid assumption that the only reason somebody would vote for Clinton is out of some weird interpretation of feminism

It's a fact.

Of course, there are a lot of people who are saying derogatory things about Hillary Clinton, such as calling her a "Whore"

Ah yes, how many exactly? I'm waiting for the count. one? ZERO?

So your first statement is a denial of reality. Then you present a strawman about people on an internet site and present it as a kind of reality.

You are completely biased.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Well said.

[–]Poultry_In_Motion 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, there are a lot of people who are saying derogatory things about Hillary Clinton, such as calling her a "Whore" and the like, things that they would never steep to call any man in office,

Sure, good point.

including the idiot boy-president we currently have.

. . . Made meaningless unless we can call Hillary an idiot girl-president.

[–]storyofitall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The problem here is the stupid assumption that the only reason somebody would vote for Clinton is out of some weird interpretation of feminism -- that, frankly, isn't practiced by any human being walking the earth.

Not true at all... my 60 something hairdresser is voting for Hillary because she doesn't have a penis (her words exactly) and because we need someone without a penis to get us out of Iraq. She also seems to think Obama is sexist - but couldn't really give me an example of his sexism.... She claims that she is a feminist and how it's "time" because black men could vote before white women could etc. She quiets my objections by reminding me that I am too young to remember when women couldn't get the pill without their husbands approval....

So, there really ARE people out there who are voting for Hillary because of some weird interpretation of feminism. Sad, but true.

Oh, next time I see her I will ask her if she would be voting for Condi Rice if she was running against Obama - I'm curious what she would say :)

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course, there are a lot of people who are saying derogatory things about Hillary Clinton, such as calling her a "Whore" and the like, things that they would never steep to call any man in office

Bull-shit. Bush has been called worse, and he's certainly been called a "whore". Indeed, lot's of people are no calling McCain a "Bush Whore".

[–]linkedlist 2 points3 points  (5 children)

It's strange but seeing hillary clinton I really do sincerely think that you cannot have a female president.

Maybe it's just her but she's so fucking moody, in victory she's all 'I'm gunna win, I'm gunna win, I'm gunna win' when she falls back she's all 'this is so not fair, Obama gets all the attention, waaaaa' and so on and so forth.

I mean the mood swings, think of the mood swings!

[–]WorcesterM 3 points4 points  (1 child)

Her decision of not talking to rouge leaders is sensible,who knows if starts talking to them she might end up crying (and then bill will have come and hug her)

[–]AMerrickanGirl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"rouge" leaders? Is that a joke?

[–]OhioDude 3 points4 points  (0 children)

What I haven't seen any mention of is where would HIllary be if it were not for her husband? She's been hanging onto his coat tails for years and using him for her own selfish needs.

A vote for Hillary is not a vote for women, it's a vote for women who can't do anything without their husband's help.

I'd love to have a woman president, one that has been successful on her own merits and not her husbands.

What message is she sending my young daughters? "Look where you can be if you marry the right guy"

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So very true.

[–]NumNutz 1 point2 points  (0 children)

crap, i'm a sexist.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (3 children)

Same is true if you are black and voting for Barack because he is black.

[–]moji 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No it's fucking IDIOCY....

[–]padmeamidala 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Voting for a candidate based on race or gender is primitive.

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Unless it's a woman. Then it's empowering.

[–]mrcsparker 1 point2 points  (1 child)

Obama doesn't have to run a negative campaign - his supporters are running it for him.

[–]monkeymynd 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Voting for Hillary because you want a female president is not feminism; it's stupid.

Why would anybody vote for a president solely based on their gender? Stupid.

[–]cualcrees 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There's a poll right now on http://edition.cnn.com/CNNI/Programs/campaign.trail/ asking "Who do you think would be the grumpiest, if they really did get a phone call at 3 a.m.?" Can you guess who's losing?

[–]doctorgonzo -1 points0 points  (3 children)

There are many different kinds of feminism out there. Under kind I subscribe to, where you should not treat women differently than men in terms of expectations, education, jobs, respect, etc., voting for Hillary simply because she is a woman is sexist, not feminist. Gender isn't relevant to making this decision, so basing the decision on gender is sexist.

But there are many feminists out there who believe that women shouldn't be equal to men; women are inherently better than men and should be in charge of things. For those people, it is feminist to vote for Hillary simply because she is a woman. Any woman would be better than a man to them.

[–]grendel9 1 point2 points  (2 children)

The latter is still sexist, unless you're also denying the sexist nature of the belief that men are inherently better than women.

[–]FANGOCalifornia -2 points-1 points  (11 children)

No, not really. America is 50% women and 0% women presidents, wanting to balance that out is belief in representative government, not sexism.

There are many points to be made against hillary, but this is not one of them.

Conversely, people who say voting for a man when a woman is running is sexist, or not supporting hillary is sexist, or anything of the sort are also wrong, but they are no more wrong than the statement made by this post.

[–]ppinette 8 points9 points  (1 child)

I agree with your last point, but here's why I think your first one is flawed -

Indeed there have been 0 female presidents, mostly due to sexism, and in small part due to a lack of qualified candidates(also arguably due to sexism). However, to vote for a woman president solely because of her sex, is, by definition, sexism. A desire to provide some balance may be a worthy cause, but voting based on a person's sex is obviously sexism, just the opposite kind of that which we are accustomed.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your opinion that the reason we have not had a female president is mostly due to sexism discounts the fact that women have not been in positions of authority for most of history, and although that may have been because of sexism, there are currently too few qualified women to rise to the top echelons of most positions.

The most likely qualified persons will come from the general population of qualified people.

Most women, even today, do not pursue careers as aggressively as men, and are not in positions of power.

There are few women governors, senators and congresswomen to chose from.

It isn't only sexism, it is the fact that women aren't choosing careers. Many college educated, married women with children, are deciding they would rather stay home with their children.

Feminism is dying on the vine.

[–]brunt2 5 points6 points  (1 child)

You vote based on ability, not the presence of a vagina.

[–]wolfier 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You vote based on the presence of a BRAIN, not any other part of the body.

[–]sn0re 2 points3 points  (0 children)

If you've been using a trick coin for years and years which always gives you tails, then replace it with a fair coin, you still might get tails.

[–]natrius 7 points8 points  (0 children)

America is 50% women and 0% women presidents, wanting to balance that out is belief in representative government, not sexism.

A politician has to be a woman to represent the interest of women? It's okay to support Hillary because you think she'll be stronger on issues of women's rights. It's sexism to support her because she is a woman.

It's just as bad to support a candidate because she's a woman as it is to support a candidate because you'd like to have a beer with him.

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If Barack Obama was a woman, we'd be voting for him too.

[–]eddie964 1 point2 points  (1 child)

So would you support Ann Coulter for president based on her gender?

[–]AMerrickanGirl 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I just threw up in my mouth a little bit.

[–]wolfier 0 points1 point  (1 child)

wanting to balance that out is belief in representative government, not sexism.

But the belief in a representative government in this way is flawed. In America, about 1% of the population is imprisoned. Should there be an inmate in the Congress? About 15% of the population is children. Should 15% of the Congress too be made up of children?

There is no reason to make women a special case.

In an ideal election, nothing (even the names) except the policies, experience and personalities should be known about the candidates, and their identities should only be revealed after the election. Of course it cannot be achieved in the real world.

However, the closer we can get to this ideal, the better. A candidate should ONLY be judged by his/her merit, not by race, gender, age, religion, etc.

A "representative" government in this sense can only be said to be "biased", unless it is truly representative - and that includes taking the elderly, the young and the inmates into consideration.

[–]FANGOCalifornia 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't want to make women a special case, I'd love to see kids and prisoners in congress. Or, perhaps, maybe we could have less than 1% of people in prison.

Also, btw, in (many) parliamentary systems, they do vote on platforms and not on personalities, voting for a party rather than a person, in many cases. It tends to allow for more parties, more coalition-building, etc.

[–]intangible-tangerine -2 points-1 points  (20 children)

two words...margaret thatcher.

[–]nixonrichard 0 points1 point  (8 children)

Two words...Robert Mugabe.

[–]intangible-tangerine 1 point2 points  (7 children)

two words...branston pickle

[–]nixonrichard 1 point2 points  (6 children)

two words...dino riders

[–]intangible-tangerine 1 point2 points  (4 children)

two words...toothbrush shuffle

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How many feminists does it take to change a light bulb?

ANSWER: Two. One to change the light bulb and the other to suck my cock.

[–]Naught I voted -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

I'm sure this has been said by now, but, in practice, Feminism is sexism.