then we will be living in a completely totalitarian society because someone can ALWAYS argue that there is a power imbalance in ANY situation, so NO ONE will be free to have ANY relationship until some AUTHORITY has decided it is free, or free enough, from this taint to be allowable. Really some people on the left do have a way of making right wing insanity sound reasonable, or at least no worse than average.

OK, they were just shacking up and having premarital sex.

Your point?

Pay attention....

Those quotes are taken from very recent events. And that's what I said. Hillary Clinton began bringing gender into the equation only after it was clear Obama had co-opted the "I'm making history the likes of which we as a nation have never seen" spiel. It was irksome to see him repeat that again and again while not noting that Clinton's nomination would be equally historic. I'm glad she finally started responding by noting that the stakes are the same for both of them, not just him. It's really that transparent, and that simple. Or maybe you can find an earlier quote from Clinton to try to make your point.

Well, I think you made it for me.

You said, "it is extremely common for husband-and-wife teams to work at the same law school."

And then I pointed out that Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton weren't married at the time they worked at the UofA, and in fact not for a full year, and so, therefore, they weren't, as you suggested, a "husband-and-wife team."

As a law student, surely you should be able to appreciate the difference.

Meet the Press, Jan. 13, 2008:

"You have a woman running to break the highest and hardest glass ceiling."

LA Times, Jan. 9, 2008:

"The survey found that Clinton, who spoke Monday of shattering the "highest and tallest glass ceiling in our country" by becoming the first female president, won 46% of women's votes, compared to 34% for Obama."

Oct. 25, 2007:

"And for me it's a great honor and an extraordinarily humbling experience to think that I could be the first woman president of the United States."

Shall I go on?

there seem to be a great many things that don't get discussed. I feel quite confident though that the republicans will be prepared to discuss them-when they feel the time is right. The fact that so many obama supporters are so sensitive (for themselves and their candidate if emphatically NOT for others) implies to me that they are worried about what will happen when obama-and even more so his supporters- actually are forced to to hear a discouraging word. So far we have absolutely no real evidence of how they will react when this happens.

So, when you say hijacking democracy, do you include denying the vote to the Democrats of Florida and Michigan?

Obama is pure by definition, and Clinton is evil, so why deal with real issues.

Sweetie, I rescinded my assertion that they were a husband-and-wife team, and I substituted the assertion that they were a shacking-up-and-having-premarital-sex team.

Unless you want to argue that the dean of the University of Arkansas didn't know that Hill was going home with Bill at the end of the day, then I win this one. Sorry!

Because you're still using very recent comments. And, at the same time, Clinton has emphasized the gender issues very seldom when compared to Obama. But sure, you can quote as long as you like. It doesn't change the fact that Obama references his "historic campaign" every time he gives a speech. It's not the case with Obama.

Sorry, time to talk to folks who can argue civilly. "Sweetie" is really not very cool. So long.

I know you're a member of the cult of victimhood that hopes to gain revenge on all your mean, insensitive, cheating ex-boyfriends by voting for Hillary, and so you can't be expected to listen to reason.

But if you really want to conflate Barack's oblique references to his campaign's "unlikely journey" or "historic" nature, to Hillary and Bill's repeated and blatant assertions that she will break the glass ceiling and be the first female president, as I've quoted them above, then knock yourself out.

Barack has been very careful not to pigeonhole himself as "the black candidate." Remember all those navel-gazing stories a couple months ago asking whether he was "black enough"? If he'd been up there giving the Black Power salute, that wouldn't have happened. Meanwhile, everything about Hillary's campaign screams Girl Power, from her carefully modulated Kindergarten Teacher voice she uses on the stump, to her overt appeals to female "solidarity," to her hour-long infomercial she bought on the Hallmark Channel the night before Super Tuesday.

So go ahead. Cast your vote. Spritz some Baby Soft on your ballot so it smells pretty. Listen to Celine Dion singing a warbling version of "Hail to the Chief." Chicks rule!

And get ready to lose this primary, even if Hill is your BFF.

"Our time has come" in almost every speech. What does he mean by this?

I always wonder what provokes that sort of incoherent rage.... It's interesting, in a freaky, scary sort of way.

So, okay. I'm happily married. Have been for years. And I try to keep my eating-babies-for-breakfast habit to only one a week these days.

I'll leave you with this:

"Hillary vs. Barack? A Black (Male) Feminist Considers"

by Mark Anthony Neal

January 9, 2008

"I have to admit, that I haven't thought much about the gender question as it relates to the contest between Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. That is until Gloria Steinem shot a bow across the collective dome of so many folk who claim a progressive gender (and sexual) politics. Writing recently in the New York Times, Steinem asks aloud: what if it was "Achola Obama" and not Barack Obama who was running for president? According to Steinem, "nether [Achola Obama] nor Hillary Clinton could have used Mr. Obama's public style--or Bill Clinton's either--without being considered too emotional by Washington pundits." And while I'm with my colleague Salamishah Tillet, who suggested that Steinem didn't have to create "Achola Obama"--the example of Carol Moseley Braun's 2004 Presidential run would have sufficed--Steinem is on point when she asks "why is the sex barrier not taken as seriously as the racial one?"

"Again, I hadn't thought much about the gender barrier, in large part, because I never assumed that Hillary Clinton's gender, could easily translate into a feminist politics beyond its symbolic value. Like Geraldine Ferraro, the democratic vice-presidential candidate in 1984, Ms. Clinton has a political style that easily disassociates itself with stereotypical notions of femininity--a style that is largely dictated by the masculine sensibilities of electoral politics in our country. Ironically, Clinton's willingness to play the game on patriarchy's terms has been, until recently, used against her. That Ms. Clinton is still married to a man involved in the most visible sexual harassment case in American history, also does little to enhance her viability as the candidate that could more adequately address gender inequality in our society. Where was Ms. Clinton when her husband rode workfare programs--the premise being that women who are home taking care of young children are not really working--to his reelection in 1996?

"In contrast to Senator Clinton though, what has Mr. Obama done, really, to justify the large number of women supporters that he has drawn to his campaign--other than be a tall, handsome, articulate and not particularly threatening version of black masculinity? Yes, I applaud the prominent role that Michelle Obama has played in his candidacy--she is one of the Senator's best assets. And I'm not discounting Mr. Obama's propensity for creating unity (or Ms. Clinton's propensity for the opposite), but what has Mr. Obama offered with regard to a progressive gender politics other than seem like a likable guy?

"Steinem is at pains to make sure that readers don't see her critique of the role of gender in the democratic race as an attempt to pit gender against race, in some hierarchy of oppressions. But even Ms. Steinem misses the point that for a significant amount of black folk, separating gender and race out of the equation is not possible. Much has been made about the increased significance of the black vote in the democratic primaries, but black women make up more than a majority of registered black voters--some numbers suggest that they make up nearly two-thirds of registered black voters. Thus this process is not about winning the hearts of black voters, but more specifically, about winning the hearts of black women voters.

"This is why South Carolina is such critical terrain for both Obama and Clinton, with black voters representing more than 40% of registered democrats in the state. Black women voters are the primary reason why Senator Obama employed Oprah Winfrey's celebrity in his stumps in the state; those black women are the reason why Reverend Marcia L. Dyson has been traveling throughout the state on behalf of Senator Clinton. Ironically Black women represent a segment of the American electorate that has rarely had their concerns addressed or even acknowledged. Think, for example, about the collective silence of John Edwards and Dick Cheney when Gwen Ifill asked them about high HIV rates among black women in the 2004 Vice-Presidential debate. Nearly four years later, like some surreal remix of The Children of Men, black women may dictate the future of the democratic party and thus the future of this country."

http://blogs.vibe.com/man/2008/01/hillary-vs-barack-a-black-male-feminist-considers/

.....

Honestly? I agree with a lot of that. And I also believe that Hillary Clinton should start talking *more* about women and gender and how politics affect women. I don't think she's done that enough, frankly.

We need more advocacy, not less.