What about that Cythera woman, AKA

Most of all, the sight of him, skinny and doofy, standing on the stage debating McCain will make a lot of voters think, what in the world are the Democrats doing sending this lightweight up there? - cytheria

This particular poster decided to attack Obama regarding his looks. Wow. Some of the best presidents we've had (Lincoln, of course comes to mind) were kind of skinny and kind of doofy. So don't say some people don't have "silly" reasons to dislike Obama, either based on his looks (or possibly his biracial background, which is why he looks the way he does.)

I don't think you really care about stopping divisiveness between canidates. If you did, you'd be calling for people to on both sides to stop the name calling. You wouldn't be pointing out the nutjobs (or you would be doing it for both canidates.)

I don't care if the supporters are divided over issues. I like to read substantive debates. The sexist attacks (like racist attacks would be) are not issues. As to cynthera, you need to go back and read my question to her at 12:45 in this thread. She hasn't answered me yet.

Here's the deal: I see sexist (ageist and classist) language exactly on par with racist language. None of them are excusable. I am talking here specifically about language used by people here at Salon, since this is the only political site where I post. I am calling out people using sexist and racist language. It is just that the Clinton supporters are not using much racist language. If you want to show me some, go to it. It will only benefit the discussion if it is eliminated. I don't see most comments upon people's looks as being especially sexist or racist. How is pointing out that Obama is skinny racist? He actually is skinny. Hillary actually does have thick ankles. And I think the red lipstick is a dreaful mistake.

I don't understand. I usually really like your posts. I've never really interacted with you, since I've liked everything else you've ever said, but when it comes to Clinton, you seem to be really crazy and irrational. (I hope that's not misogynistic.)

I suspect that you have either never read much feminist theory or are actually young compared to me. I am a feminist. I don't like sexist language. I think that it is being used unfairly against Clinton.

It's seems you have sunk your teeth into the idea that all Obama supporters are misogynistic in their language (I suppose just criticizing Clinton is somehow misogynistic) and have no real reason for supporting their canidate other than hating Hillary.

No, I don't think all Obama supporters are misogynistic in their language, but many are. The Hillary-haters are. Read back to dataguyx's post that I copied into this thread and tell me what you think that is?

Those Obama that are not misogynistic in their language choices, I will not and cannot criticize on that basis.

It's her supporters that are wearing me out. Your mantle of victimhood, the poor little me bullshit; the first woman president (just like the first black president) is going to have to deal with a legacy of misogyny beyond being called "shrill" or whatever.

You mistake me. I don't feel at all personally victimized. It is not accurate to say that feminism is about victimization. It is quite the opposite. That victim shit is just a label that right wingers have tried to attach to feminists. Their real fear is that feminism is about gaining personal, social, cultural, financial, and political power for women. You can be your ass it is!

Please remember that I was a John Edwards supporter until he dropped out. I still prefer him. I think Obama has almost no chance of winning. I think Clinton has only slightly more of a chance of winning. Most of the time when I point out sexist language, my motive is not even to defend Clinton mainly.

Look at it this way:

I like Clinton: 15% of my motive.

I hate sexist language: 20% of my motive.

I hate sexism: 65% of my motive.

This is more about my values than the current race. It's the priciple of the thing. Political races come and go. Principles are important.

And I know you didn't call us kool-aid drinking worshippers of Jim Jones, but you have concede it's canard which has been used with frequency by Clinton supporters on this website. Just like some of us have called you names.

Who called me names? Did anyone do so unjustly in your opinion? Did anyone attack me solely to score political points? Do you know anyone like that?

Besides, Krugman aside, Obama and Clinton are in a competition. I wish it wasn't getting so dirty, but that's the way it is. The folks who won't vote for Clinton if Obama gets it, and vice versa, well, hasn't that happened in every election? So get over it. If it scares you so much, then use reasonable arguments instead of Krugman's crack about the cult of personality.

Has anyone ever told you that you use more emphatic word choices than I do? Well I guess they wouldn't. Therefore I will tell you that phrases like "get over it" don't quite impress people my age. It does scare me that we will probably lose the general. In my lifetime, no election has ever been as important. Do I think Obama is less substantive than Clinton? I do. Do I think that Obama is less experienced than Clinton? I do. Do I think Obama is a weaker debater than Clinton. I do. Do I disagree with his health care plan. I do. Do I think that he depends too much upon his personal charisma. I do, and to his peril. These are not racist attacks. These are considered opinions. It would behoove Obama supporters, if they really want to defend their candidate to understand this. Don't offer hope. Offer facts. Stop just referring everyone who has an objection to his website. Stand your ground and address the these matters. Understand that people will rebut you. Then you get to rebut them. Nobody needs to call names.

To be honest getting all of the registered democrats to vote democrat isn't going to be enough. We're going to have to swing the independents to the canidates side. I seriously don't know which of them, Obama or Clinton, can get that vote. Being that I live in deep South, I can't really imagine many of the folks here voting for Clinton. (I was talking about her earlier with one of my older co-workers, saying that if Obama didn't win I felt as a Democrat I had to vote for Clinton, and an old guy actually spat tobacco when I said it. I'm not kidding. It was gross.)

I live in Texas. Both Clinton and Obama are at a disadvantage. Do you understand why Obama is at a disadvantage?

Even my conservative newspaper ran and editorial that was nice about Obama.

And that should really worry you. The columnists in my conservative newspaper are doing the same thing. That worries me. It doesn't reassure me at all. It doesn't mean that they actually support Obama. They are just pissed off at McCain and trying to hold his feet to the fire over conservative issues. They are also trying to lull us to sleep.

There's really not much more to say about this. I have my opinion and you have yours. I'm just really surprised and disappointed at the way your acting towards people who support Obama. Ignore the nutjobs; their are plenty of people on this website who have reasoned arguments as to why they are voting for him.

Sorry. I won't ignore sexist or racist language.

I think if Obama supporters decide to sit out this election, it's going to be because of people like you.

You give me too much power.