Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
I hope feminists take note of your post--that a vote for Hillary Clinton does not necessarily make a person enlightened.
If you don't like Dowd's columns--fine--but calling her a twat and a douchebag is an example of sexism/bigotry.
Don't just be proud to support one woman--in honor of the Democratic Party, home to women, be respectful toward us all...
I rightly said you should switch your name
To dolores enpower.
Blue collar whites in the Midwest would believe the sky was green if a politician said so. They're dumb, gullible morons who believe any propaganda thrown their way and deserve another 4 years of Republican rule. Of course, then the same blue collar douchebags will whine when a hurricane hits, when their lameass blue collar jobs are gone, when they have no health care. Whatever. No one cares about them.
The only thing that will make that seriously damaged woman at the NYT (and some Obama supporters)happy is if Hillary disappeared from the planet. But it ain't gonna happen. While Dowd stews in her cauldron of bitterness the Clintons will be riding high. If Hillary doesn't make it to the presidency, Chelsea will! Guaranteed! I can't stand to watch the 2008 Democratic convention knowing what the DNC, the media and the Obama campaign did to the Clintons, making them out to be the Ma and Pa Kettle of the KKK. But, as I've said before, I'll vote for the Democratic nominee because I can't imagine McCrazy with his hands on THE BUTTON. Doesn't mean I'll be skipping with joy into the voting booth.
I don't understand why PUMA's are so angry and I don't know why they are skeptical of Obama. Not a single person, not even Joan Walsh, who is a Hillary fan, has explained the differences between the candidates' platforms.
This whole controversy in the media seems pretty mindless, devoid of any specifics, any analysis of the difference between Hillary's platform and Obama's. We even hear idiots on NPR's "Morning Edition" saying stupid shit like "Obama has asked for my money, but not my vote."
Joan! Please ENUMERATE the policy differences that P.U.M.A.'s and Obama skeptics at the Convention are talking about. What differences are there? What are they demanding of Obama? If there are no substantive differences between their platforms, I can't figure out why they are so passionate for Hillary other than this whole affair is nothing more than mindless identity politics and fodder for Republican trolling.
believe me, there is no sexism in my description of maureen dowd. if i called rush limbaugh a dick or a douchebag, would that be sexist? i don't have to respect one woman to respect all women. as a matter of fact, i can choose which women to respect, that's democracy. the great thing about clinton's campaign is that it transcended gender. whining about maureen dowd being called a twat is frankly just a waste of time and energy.
I am a white older feminist(77) who took a federal grant in the 70's and taught feminism in a public high school for girls.
I voted for Obama at the last minute because I thought we needed someone with a little less baggage from the past that the Clintons represented.
I also didn't like Hillary's ad campaign and thought Mark Penn was a detriment to a clean campaign.
But these PUMA women's attitude give be a belly ache! Whatever happened to their knowledge of political campaigns! One person wins and the other(s)lose. If it's about Hillary, not just that she's a woman,then Obama's positions are very near to hers.
If it's about race, they should indeed vote for McCain, the WASP traditional candidate du jour.
And this concerns sexism, not whining.
But if you call a woman names with historical sexist associations, whether or not you like this woman, whether or not you would use these same terms for a man--it qualifies as sexist behavior.
Many people behaved in sexist ways towards Clinton and justified their behavior by saying that they didn't like her. Look--if you only use the word twat about women you don't like--sorry buddy, that's still sexist.
And what I mean by respect is not that you worship her ideas or respect her ideas--attack her ideas if you like, or even her style--but attacking her personally with words with sexist associations is not okay.
I'm glad that you feel Clinton's campaign transcended gender--that's great. But a writer below was chastised for attacking female supporters of Clinton by referring to their big girl panties...he was criticised for sexism--by people including myself. His justification was that he didn't like these people--because they might be helping to elect John McCain...but that didn't get him out of hot water either. And by the way this is not about my liking Maureen Dowd--sometimes she drives me nuts--although I do find myself reading her columns. I say this also because I've seen many attacks on Joan Walsh and other women on salon. The justification is always that they "deserve" it. I just don't agree.
And if Clinton's campaign is going to have a legacy in the Democratic Party--let it be that women don't deserve to be harassed with historically sexist language, any more than black people deserve to be harassed with historically racist language.
when you know nothing about a person's history, you can't possibly categorized them as sexist. need i remind you that the clintons were categorized as racist during the campaign simply because that was the only ammunition left in the barrel.
sexism like racism is usually institutional and is intended to keep women and minorities back. as a business owner, i've never judged or hired my employees based on sex, on the contrary.
i know nothing about you and wouldn't risk judging you, but it clearly sounds like you're out of step with the times. political correctness as a cover for society's failings is a thing of the '90s. now, it's about action not just good words, so i suggest that rather than worrying about my use of language, you preoccupy yourself with actually doing something about the real problems in society. and if i choose to call ann coulter, bill o'reilly, maureen dowd, rush limbaugh, or any of the other neanderthals populating the media twats, dicks, assholes, or what have you, then that is simply my problem, not a gender bias.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
