When Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton flew to New Delhi to meet with Indian business leaders in 2005, she offered a blunt assessment of the loss of American jobs across the Pacific. "There is no way to legislate against reality," she declared. "Outsourcing will continue. ... We are not against all outsourcing; we are not in favor of putting up fences."

Two years later, as a Democratic presidential hopeful, Clinton struck a different tone when she told students in New Hampshire that she hated "seeing U.S. telemarketing jobs done in remote

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/08/politics/main3244256.shtml

1. Barack Obama has passed more progressive legislation in his lifetime than Hillary Clinton. As an Illinois Senator he passed over 200 of the bills he wrote. These bills include:

1. A bill that expanded healthcare to over 100,000 people in Illinois.

2. A bill that set up community health centers to serve underserved populations.

3. A bill that provided the earned income tax credit to thousands of Illinois families.

4. A bill that reformed the death penalty that had sent innocent people to death row

5. A bill that banned gifts and meals from lobbyists.

6. And much more.

2. While Hillary Clinton has spent more time in the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama has gotten more substantive legislation that affects the American people passed while he???s been there. Many of Clinton???s bills were about naming post offices and buildings. However, Obama???s legislation includes:

1. A bill with Senator Richard Lugar which bans the development of nuclear weapons.

2. A bill that created a public database where average Americans can see how the government is spending their money.

3. A bill that provided important assistance to address the situation in the Congo.

4. A bill that Nancy Pelosi calls ???one of the toughest ethics reform??? bills in this history of the Congress.

I am a dipshit and need to plug in my vibrator and stick it...where ever I see fit. This is because I suggested there is danger in masses of people with glazed eyes throwing their allegiance to a man based on a few choice soundbites (change and hope rah rah rah)a couple of good speechwriters (hey if he was good enough for JFK)and the dramatic talents to deliver them so they touch the raw emotions/yearnings of his listeners. Not to mention the propaganda machine, uh er, media, that has thrown their full support behind the man. Add to that heady mix a scapegoat (Jews or Clintons)enemy and the comparisons could be made. I'm not saying th eman has policies like Hitler. No, I never said that, did I? I actually can't tell what the man's policies are over the din of his speechmaking slogans and the roar of the adoring crowds, most of whom take him for what he says he is, and that's good enough for them. And if anybody dares question "well, who is he exactly, they are treated to all manner of personal insult and attack--your preference---or they're "against hope," Obama's personal choice.

You had me for almost nine paragraphs, and I do admire your penchant for reason and ability to use critical thinking. No, that doesn't mean most of the women here do not, only that most of the posters here do not. They're too busy throwing bombs at each other. Kinda like a certain part of the middle east. Eye for an eye and all that.

But then, near the end of your very refreshing post (I am an Obama supporter, so we may as well get that out of the way now so you can quit reading if you want) came the Turd in the Punchbowl: We really need to elect a woman instead of a man.

The argument comes up almost automatically from someone -- always a male -- that there's some baggage involving the male half of the Clinton team. This is a not entirely specious argument (and I have always been a great admirer and ardent supporter of Bill Clinton, having also put my money where my mouth was). Certainly many of the allusions are sexual and, in my personal opinion, in bad taste as well. But they are not necessarily grounds for calling mysogyny every single time someone mentions Bill or even just criticizes Hillary or, for that matter, fails to fall into lock-step with those who feel Ms. Clinton would be the better choice. Sometimes it is just another line of reasoning -- although I'd prefer penii and certain complimentary items be left out of the argument.

And yet...I can to a certain extent feel the frustration of the people who use genital comparisons, since that difference is a major defining element of a man or a woman, choose whichever turns you on.

So I have to ask you this: While Michele Obama has no spectacular political baggage as of yet, even so could it be, in this "It has to be a woman" reasoning which we find tied to the bumper of your (in particular) otherwise well-reasoned and clearly thought-out position, that there is on your end of the argument an element of misandry? Could that play even a small part in many feminism-influenced arguments for voting for Ms. Clinton instead of Obama?

Do not misunderstand: I feel first a woman President would be every bit as historically significant as an ethnic minority male. Further, I have absolutely no problem with a woman being President, assuming I feel she is the better qualified candidate. Since I don't feel that way this time, and since it is the first time, I suppose opposition to that possibility could be every bit as frustrating to women (and feminists in general) as we of the Obama persuasion being told we need to wait. The image of the cover of Dr. M.L. King's book "Why We Can't Wait" immediately springs to my very visual mind. I'm sure feminists feel the same argument can be made, and I honor that. I just happen to feel this woman does not measure up to this man re: which would make the better Presidential candidate. Does that mean I am a de facto misogynist? I would passionately argue against that proposition.

Please give it some thought before you answer -- if you even choose to answer. You seem an intelligent person and I like that and lend a lot more weight to it than to any person's political views. Lord knows there are intelligent people who do not arrive at like conclusions every time. One hopes there is still room to disagree without each party calling the other an idiot or worse (often much worse, as we've seen here of late).

RR22, can you shed any light on the possibility of misandry playing even a tiny role in the discourse here, as opposed to the acknowleged mysogyny of many, though by no means all or even the majority of sometimes frustrated men of perhaps limited vocabulary?

Hey, I'm serious! Please?