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?

I can't believe what I am reading. My reading of Krugman's column - he sees that the media is consistently negative towards Clinton and defines this as "Clinton Rules". I've read through almost all the posts here and I see many Obama supporters using (parroting) what the media is/has been saying about Clinton since the 90s. It upsets me to see proported liberals who support Obama using those very talking points that the obviously biased media is concocting agst the Clinton camp. All the talk of queen Hillary and her sense of entitlement is totally made up by the media and I can't believe my follow dems who happen to support Obama would actually use that. For the record, I was ready to vote for Edwards on the Cal primary and I very carefully studied who to vote for. Hillary might not be as exciting as Obama but she has real and feasible plans on how to make our country better. I call shame on those out there in whatever camp who think that because the media says it is okay they can take low shots at Clinton without taking a closer look at who she is and what she stands for.

A poem forsooth:

People want to believe that they are instruments of change.

We are all rebels at heart.

We all grew up wanting to be

more than our parents.

We cannot move beyond where we are

without the innate belief and aspirations

that the future is an exciting, rewarding place

worthy of the struggle it takes to get there.

Obama supporters realize

they can escape the hole

and find the incessant voice of a government that dictates from fear

is replaced by the sounds

of eager enthusiasm.

Doo-dah doo-dah...