Elton John Bashes Misogynists For Not Supporting Clinton

[Shadowdweller]

It isn't like we know nothing of Clinton's real values. I think she has enough public exposure to say the anti-war tendency is there. It may be there for Obama as well but he has much less of a public history for us to judge him by.

You mean as sharply contrasting with her voting record, her refusal to apologize for her role in empowering the war, her hardline foreign policy stances...and the fact that she's taken more money from the Defense industry than any other candidate including John McCain?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sectors.asp?sec=D

 

[T.A.M.]

or what she feels about blue collar people when she is not running for president...

"Scew'm" apparently.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you," she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

SO when the the small guy can help her, she is in their corner, but if they do not help her...**** them basically.


TAM

 

[Tailgater]

http://www.oxygen.com/Tvshows/SNP/

I watched this show with my wife last night. Alot of the shows have women behind the scenes using men to kill other people for them. Not direct physical violence. Kind of like what a leader who starts a war would do.

Women do not start wars.

BTW, this statement is false.

 

[meg]

The topic of this thread is not Matthews. This is one individual, yes a sexist and misogynistic one, but the topic of this thread is about the Democrat voters as a whole who are alledgedly misogynistic for not supporting Clinton. If this is true, then there would be multiple examples of that, there would be multiple Matthews. I think to focus on one SOB doesn't prove the claim of the OP. That's why I said that it doesn't prove much of anything. It proves that this guy is a sexist, but it doesn't prove the allegation that not voting for Clinton is due to misogyny.

Otherwise it's just an argument from anecdote.

Why is this so hard to understand?

To be more clear, let me correct your last sentence:

you wanted evidence of -------- misogyny solely towards Hillary.

There, that's what I want.

There's a pretty good article here about the subject:

http://nymag.com/news/features/46011/

..The egregious and by now familiar potshots are too numerous (and tiresome) to recount. A greatest-hits selection provides a measure of the misogyny: There’s Republican axman Roger Stone’s anti-Hillary 527 organization, Citizens United Not Timid, or ****. And the Facebook group Hillary Clinton: Stop Running for President and Make Me a Sandwich, which has 44,000-plus members. And the “Hillary Nutcracker” with its “stainless-steel thighs.” And Clinton’s Wikipedia page, which, according to The New Republic, is regularly vandalized with bathroom-stall slurs like “slut” and “cuntbag.” And the truly horrible YouTube video of a KFC bucket that reads HILLARY MEAL DEAL: 2 FAT THIGHS, 2 SMALL BREASTS, AND A BUNCH OF LEFT WINGS. And Rush Limbaugh worrying whether the country is ready to watch a woman age in the White House (as though nearly every male politician has not emerged portly, wearied, and a grandfatherly shade of gray). And those two boors who shouted, “Iron my shirts!” from the sidelines in New Hampshire. “Ah, the remnants of sexism,” Clinton replied, “alive and well.” With that, she blithely shrugged off the heckling.

It was hardly a revelation to learn that sexism lived in the minds and hearts of right-wing crackpots and Internet nut-jobs, but it was something of a surprise to discover it flourished among members of the news media. The frat boys at MSNBC portrayed Clinton as a castrating scold, with Tucker Carlson commenting, “Every time I hear Hillary Clinton speak, I involuntarily cross my legs,” and Chris Matthews calling her male endorsers “castratos in the eunuch chorus.” Matthews also dubbed Clinton “the grieving widow of absurdity,” saying, of her presidential candidacy and senatorial seat, “She didn’t win there on her merit. She won because everybody felt, ‘My God, this woman stood up under humiliation.’ ” While that may be partly true—Hillary’s approval ratings soared in the wake of l’affaire Lewinsky—Matthews’s take reduced her universally recognized political successes to rewards for public sympathy, as though Clinton’s intelligence and long record of public service count for nothing. Would a male candidate be viewed so reductively? Many have argued that the media don’t like Clinton simply because they don’t like Clinton—even her devotees will admit she arrives with a complete set of overstuffed baggage—much in the same way they made up their mind about Al Gore back in 2000 and ganged up on him as a prissy, uptight know-it-all. But whatever is behind the vitriol, it has taken crudely sexist forms.

Even when the media did attempt to address the emergent sexism, the efforts were tepid, at best. After the laundry incident, USA Today ran the extenuating headline, “Clinton Responds to Seemingly Sexist Shouts.” A handful of journalists pointed out the absurdity of the adverb. “If these comments were only ‘seemingly’ sexist, I wonder what, exactly, indubitably sexist remarks would sound like?” Meghan O’Rourke wrote on The XX Factor, a blog written by Slate’s female staffers. Many women, whatever their particular feelings about Hillary Clinton (love her, loathe her, voting for her regardless), began to feel a general sense of unease at what they were witnessing. The mask had been pulled off—or, perhaps more apt, the makeup wiped off—and the old gender wounds and scars and blemishes, rather than having healed in the past three decades, had, to the surprise of many of us, been festering all along..

 

[Cicero]

I don't assume Clinton holds typical female attitudes, I see it in her history. What I said was there was no reason not to think she did. Thatcher, OTOH, was a NeoCon in my opinion and that is the antithesis of the female qualities I am referring to.
.

Sure. British PM Thatcher followed the singularly American political philosophy of neoconservatism. That is why she went around the U.S. Reagan administration to fight the Argentinians in the Falkland War.

I imagine that Thatcher was also the antithesis of the "female qualities' you hold near and dear when she participated in a live fire exercise of the SAS in their "killing house." She was completely calm, cool and collected while SAS fired live ammo above and to the side of her while she sat in a chair. On the other hand, her male government official dove for cover.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This is a comment in reply to two other posts in a different thread that belonged here instead.

One post
Two posts

[TheJim]What are these characteristics that women (of course in general) that men (again of course in general) don't have? I hope it is more than men are violent and women are not because i don't want to be the one to break it to you but Hillary Clinton has already voted for war twice and has stated less than a week ago that we would get involved in wars between Islamic States.

[Giz]It also legitimises other tactics. Suppose men started saying "it's a tough world out there, I want an assertive leader who'll stand up for us on the world stage... someone with BALLS!". How is that different to your statements?

In the real world, you get male leaders like Jimmy Carter and female leaders like Margaret Thatcher... individuals, not gender stereotypes.

Interesting we all seem to recognize Carter as having the less aggressive and Thatcher as having the more aggressive leadership styles. In those two cases one can see they don't fit the gender mold so it would not be appropriate to assume they did.

But say one was comparing Obama and Clinton, again considering one already came to the conclusion they were too similar to easily decide between them, Clinton's maturity and experience vs Obama's better public speaking and motivation skills were balanced. Then you start thinking about how each might handle problems that had yet to arise and what priorities they might each have regarding things yet to come up. It is here where you might consider how gender might affect their response to something as yet unknown.

It would be legit to see Obama as just a little more likely to represent your interests and know your life experiences if there was something about him you related to be it that he is black, or maybe that he was raised in an environment similar to yours. It is here that I see Clinton's gender as being just a little more likely to be reflected in values similar to mine as a woman. It might be making women's rights just a little higher on the agenda. Not much attention has been paid to women's rights and it is a serious problem worldwide. It might be Clinton would be just a little less inclined to resort to violence to resolve a conflict or maybe a foreign leader might be a little less concerned about the US resorting to violence seeing a woman leader.

Some people might decide that is a negative thing. If you think we are better off just bombing Iran for example, chances are you'd be voting for McCain anyway.

The differences would still be subtle between Clinton and Obama. But it is possible to make some assumptions based on gender or ethnic background without using the differences as some biased overkill motive for choosing a candidate.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

But say one was comparing Obama and Clinton, again considering one already came to the conclusion they were too similar to easily decide between them, Clinton's maturity and experience vs Obama's better public speaking and motivation skills were balanced. Then you start thinking about how each might handle problems that had yet to arise and what priorities they might each have regarding things yet to come up. It is here where you might consider how gender might affect their response to something as yet unknown.

As your concern is whether they would start a war, would it not make more sense to look at their previous support for / opposition to doing exactly that to work out who is more likely to do so in the future?

Would seem to give a far, far more reliable evidence base than looking inside their underwear.

 

[TheJim]

But say one was comparing Obama and Clinton, again considering one already came to the conclusion they were too similar to easily decide between them, Clinton's maturity and experience vs Obama's better public speaking and motivation skills were balanced. Then you start thinking about how each might handle problems that had yet to arise and what priorities they might each have regarding things yet to come up. It is here where you might consider how gender might affect their response to something as yet unknown.

It would be legit to see Obama as just a little more likely to represent your interests and know your life experiences if there was something about him you related to be it that he is black, or maybe that he was raised in an environment similar to yours. It is here that I see Clinton's gender as being just a little more likely to be reflected in values similar to mine as a woman. It might be making women's rights just a little higher on the agenda. Not much attention has been paid to women's rights and it is a serious problem worldwide. It might be Clinton would be just a little less inclined to resort to violence to resolve a conflict or maybe a foreign leader might be a little less concerned about the US resorting to violence seeing a woman leader.

Why do you keep assuming despite the evidence that Hillary Clinton would act like your "typical women"? You keep at the minimum implying that pacifism is important to you yet Hillary Clinton is the one that has a record of authorizing wars two so far and she also voted for a bill that has language that implies consent to attack Iran while also just yesterday saying she would nuke Iran. This while her opponent was a vocal opponent to the Iraq war, has called for talks with Iran, voted against the kyle-Lieberman bill.

I don't care that you are voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a female but when you are campaigning for someone i will call ******** when i see it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Why do you keep assuming despite the evidence that Hillary Clinton would act like your "typical women"? You keep at the minimum implying that pacifism is important to you yet Hillary Clinton is the one that has a record of authorizing wars two so far and she also voted for a bill that has language that implies consent to attack Iran while also just yesterday saying she would nuke Iran. This while her opponent was a vocal opponent to the Iraq war, has called for talks with Iran, voted against the kyle-Lieberman bill.

I don't care that you are voting for Hillary Clinton because she is a female but when you are campaigning for someone i will call ******** when i see it.

Pacifism is a loaded word and while the definition is correct, "The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully", the word has been used so often to imply one refuses to fight in an existing conflict that using it attempts to reframe this discussion.

In addition, I am not going to accept your version of my position, that this is about someone being a "typical" woman. That also attempts to reframe the discussion into something it is not.

Men and women differ in a number of ways. This is a biological fact. Men and women differ in a number of socialized ways. Anyone who has raised a child knows that by the age of about 3, kids have identifiable gender behaviors.

If I bring this issue up, people have existing and often very strong existing beliefs about these things. Those existing beliefs act as a filter that takes what I am saying and alters it from what I believe and what I actually am saying into what each person reading this thinks I am saying.

In addition, people who support Obama are also adding that filter so that if I say anything that might favor Clinton, the filter discounts it.

You are welcome to hold a different view. You are welcome to support whichever candidate or no candidate you believe is the correct candidate. But I challenge 2 things, one that you are really perceiving what I am saying without those filters, and two that you are making any decision about any candidate or person for that matter without adding to your impression of them the things all of us add with all of our filters.

You are not making your own judgments about any of these candidates without filling in the blanks. No one can or does. If you see Obama claim he is 'different' and won't be 'politics as usual' and can unite people, you are making a judgment based on your filters what those claims mean and if you believe them.

My filters tell me, I see Obama behaving just like other politicians so I discount those claims. I see the Republicans as being unwilling to compromise so I doubt Obama's claims he can unite anyone.

My filters detect the 'old boy network' when certain things are observed. It is unlikely that the people in the 'old boy network' are going to be aware of the cues that I detect it with. My filters see women having different priorities than the old boy network. My filters see women as being less likely to resolve conflict with violence. My filters see women being more concerned with women's rights around the world and more concerned with health care and human rights than men who might prioritize and see as more important, the 'big stick'.

Those filters are what I see Clinton through. That is not the same as saying I see Clinton having some stereotypical female anything. But when Obama says, "I didn't vote for the war", I think, yeah right, you can say that because you didn't have to and you didn't have the peer pressure. That is how my filter views the issue you use as an example Clinton is a war monger (or whatever it is you are claiming).

When I hear the news media and you both say, "Clinton voted for the war", my filter says BS. She and everyone else voted to give Bush the authority because Bush claimed he needed the perception of a big stick in order to get Saddam to comply without war. Bush lied. But it is an equal lie to claim any of the Congresspersons who voted to give Bush war powers were voting to go to war. None of them were.

You can fault Clinton and the rest of them for not being more responsible to check the credibility of the threat and to go against the tide considering the mood of the country and how successful the Republican propaganda machine was fooling the public. But my filter says Obama can only make his claim about being against the war because he was not under peer and political pressure, and in particular, the pressure of being a Senator from NY State at that. Only someone like Dennis Kucinich can really make the honest claim he stood up against tremendous pressure and actually considered the facts and voted against giving Bush the authority in that vote.

Your filter says Clinton is a war monger, (or whatever it is you are claiming), my filter says that vote is not indicative of anything except one more incident of experience that a person grows from. I don't see that vote as evidence Clinton is a Margaret Thatcher. My filter still says that with Obama and Clinton being as close as they are in terms of choice, I think the change having a woman President will bring is enough to tip the balance in my decision of who to vote for.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

As your concern is whether they would start a war, would it not make more sense to look at their previous support for / opposition to doing exactly that to work out who is more likely to do so in the future?

Would seem to give a far, far more reliable evidence base than looking inside their underwear.

If you are talking about Clinton's vote that Obama continually claims he was against, you can see what I wrote about this above.

First, I don't buy the media version of that event, I think Clinton has made it clear she was voting for Bush to do the right thing and Bush didn't. I followed that vote closely when it happened and Bush did indeed claim he needed the 'authority' of Congress so he could make a credible threat to get Saddam to supposedly comply with inspections. But Saddam did comply and Bush never had intended to just threaten Saddam. Bush always intended to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade. (read Scott Ritter's reports about the inspections, Richard Clarke's book, Bob Woodward's book and Paul O'Neill's book, and now we have the Pentagon report that they had sent retired officers on a mission as "message amplifiers" out to fill the news media with talking points about Saddam's threat. And some of those retired officers were on the payroll of companies that had military contracts which the retired officers wanted to keep.)

And Obama can only say what he would have done, not what he actually did. He gave a speech about being against the war, but he also had no political consequences to consider when he gave that speech. If anything I find it disingenuous for Obama to make as big of a deal out of that vote as he has since it's like being an armchair quarterback claiming you could have won the game. People want to believe Obama is some magical savior. He isn't going to be that different. He's been on his honeymoon with the public. He's competent and he's a liberal but he isn't a magic man, he's a politician like all of the rest of them.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

If you are talking about Clinton's vote that Obama continually claims he was against, you can see what I wrote about this above.

First, I don't buy the media version of that event, I think Clinton has made it clear she was voting for Bush to do the right thing and Bush didn't. I followed that vote closely when it happened and Bush did indeed claim he needed the 'authority' of Congress so he could make a credible threat to get Saddam to supposedly comply with inspections. But Saddam did comply and Bush never had intended to just threaten Saddam. Bush always intended to use 9/11 as an excuse to invade. (read Scott Ritter's reports about the inspections, Richard Clarke's book, Bob Woodward's book and Paul O'Neill's book, and now we have the Pentagon report that they had sent retired officers on a mission as "message amplifiers" out to fill the news media with talking points about Saddam's threat. And some of those retired officers were on the payroll of companies that had military contracts which the retired officers wanted to keep.)

And Obama can only say what he would have done, not what he actually did. He gave a speech about being against the war, but he also had no political consequences to consider when he gave that speech. If anything I find it disingenuous for Obama to make as big of a deal out of that vote as he has since it's like being an armchair quarterback claiming you could have won the game. People want to believe Obama is some magical savior. He isn't going to be that different. He's been on his honeymoon with the public. He's competent and he's a liberal but he isn't a magic man, he's a politician like all of the rest of them.

So you think the content of their underwear IS a better indicator of the likelihood of going to war than their voting record or their public speeches.

I'm sorry but that is simply laughable. You invoke a generalisation that men are more violent than women to justify an assumption that a specific man who spoke against going to war is MORE LIKELY to start a war in the future than a specific woman who voted to go to war.

Sometimes when you are in a hole, it is a good idea to put down the shovel.

 

[TheJim]

Pacifism is a loaded word and while the definition is correct, "The belief that disputes between nations should and can be settled peacefully", the word has been used so often to imply one refuses to fight in an existing conflict that using it attempts to reframe this discussion.

You are right pacifism was might have been a too strong and too exact word to use to describe your repeated position of more peace and less violence. I do not nor did I really mean to paint you as someone that would call for a peaceful resolution even in just war situations.

In addition, I am not going to accept your version of my position, that this is about someone being a "typical" woman. That also attempts to reframe the discussion into something it is not.

It is not my version of your position it is your version of your position at least as represented by close to a dozen posts over several threads where you keep saying that Hillary Clinton has female qualities which include that she is less likely to deal with countries in a violent manner.

Men and women differ in a number of ways. This is a biological fact. Men and women differ in a number of socialized ways. Anyone who has raised a child knows that by the age of about 3, kids have identifiable gender behaviors.

No crap they are different but what you are trying to say is because most boys like to play with guns and most girls prefer dolls than Jill likes dolls even if the evidence shows that Jill is on the paint ball team, in the ROTC, the one doll she has is still in the box etc. The general does not lead to conclusions on the specific.

If I bring this issue up, people have existing and often very strong existing beliefs about these things. Those existing beliefs act as a filter that takes what I am saying and alters it from what I believe and what I actually am saying into what each person reading this thinks I am saying.

So what are you saying? Are you saying that Hillary Clinton because she is a women is less likely to partake in war than Obama?

In addition, people who support Obama are also adding that filter so that if I say anything that might favor Clinton, the filter discounts it.

I support Obama i make no secret about that and I dont care why anyone votes the way they do even if on a personal level I wish they did not vote. What I care about is when people make claims that go agianst the evidence such as a person that voted for two wars already along with a bill that is worded in a way to start a third war, calls for the use of nukes against that third country, calls for the possiblity of more wars between states that we have no stake in and recieves alot of money from defense contractors is some how a person more prone to peace because of their gender.

You are welcome to hold a different view. You are welcome to support whichever candidate or no candidate you believe is the correct candidate. But I challenge 2 things, one that you are really perceiving what I am saying without those filters, and two that you are making any decision about any candidate or person for that matter without adding to your impression of them the things all of us add with all of our filters.

To challege 1) I can only go by your words.
2) Why do you care how i pick my candidate? If vote for some because they wear green socks that is my fundemental right. It is only when i make a claim and try to shape opinion that i should be called out.

You are not making your own judgments about any of these candidates without filling in the blanks. No one can or does. If you see Obama claim he is 'different' and won't be 'politics as usual' and can unite people, you are making a judgment based on your filters what those claims mean and if you believe them.

Nice backhanded complement to Obama supporters there. You have no idea why I am voting for Obama except to make accusations that I am a misogynist and i am dazzled by pretty words. But since you did not ask i will tell you anyways. I am voting for Obama for many reasons. The first is because he is from Chicago and for personal reason his being elected president along with other leadership in Congress from Illinois his being president will hopefully bring in much needed money for the CTA and the reworking of the freight system in the area. There is his work with Luger on loose nukes along with work on getting conventional weapons. Than there is the fact he is one of the few people that actually mention Osama anymore. There is his judgment and balls to be against the war at the height of its popularity that could have cost him the race. There is view on mandatory mins. I could go on all day but i know it is easier for you to use the pretty word argument against supporters. Oh by the way how do you feel about Hillary Clinton wanting to keep non violent drug offenders in prison despite the SC ruling?

My filters tell me, I see Obama behaving just like other politicians so I discount those claims. I see the Republicans as being unwilling to compromise so I doubt Obama's claims he can unite anyone.

My filters detect the 'old boy network' when certain things are observed. It is unlikely that the people in the 'old boy network' are going to be aware of the cues that I detect it with. My filters see women having different priorities than the old boy network. My filters see women as being less likely to resolve conflict with violence. My filters see women being more concerned with women's rights around the world and more concerned with health care and human rights than men who might prioritize and see as more important, the 'big stick'.

So again you don't look at the individual but the gender? Again if that is personally what you want to base your vote on fine, but don't try to con the rest of us with this ********. Besides Hillary Clinton having a vagina what has she done for women that Obama has said he would not do or ignored? Right off the bat Obama is better for women in the 3rd world than Clinton see treatment of women pre and post invasion Iraq. Clinton's vote for the war was in effect a vote for women to lose the right to drive, work and education. What about a womens right to choose? What did Hillary do when more abortion clinics closed during her husbands presidency than in Regan and Bush's combined?

Those filters are what I see Clinton through. That is not the same as saying I see Clinton having some stereotypical female anything. But when Obama says, "I didn't vote for the war", I think, yeah right, you can say that because you didn't have to and you didn't have the peer pressure. That is how my filter views the issue you use as an example Clinton is a war monger (or whatever it is you are claiming).

There was dozens of men and women in congress that did not vote for the war yet Clinton did and she had access to the intelligence but she did not read it. Obama was in a tight primary battle when the war was at 70 percent approval so don't give me this **** about his choice being cake without consequences. His choice could have easily killed his political career. If she voted against it, her political career would be fine.

Whatever on you seeing anything not stereotypical female in Clinton, look at your dismissing evidence to the country. How do you explain the kyle-Lieberman vote? Was that peer pressure too? Let me guess Joe was wispering in her ear "all the dino's are voting for it, dont you want to be in the bomb bomb iran club too?"

When I hear the news media and you both say, "Clinton voted for the war", my filter says BS. She and everyone else voted to give Bush the authority because Bush claimed he needed the perception of a big stick in order to get Saddam to comply without war. Bush lied. But it is an equal lie to claim any of the Congresspersons who voted to give Bush war powers were voting to go to war. None of them were.

You need to get your filter cleaned. Why is it that Obama knew it was a vote for war http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech . How is it that Kennedy knew it was a vote for war http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/iraq.kennedy/ yet Hillary Clinton was tricked? How about the 22 other Senators besides Kennedy that voted against it including both men and women how where they able to resist peer pressure?

You can fault Clinton and the rest of them for not being more responsible to check the credibility of the threat and to go against the tide considering the mood of the country and how successful the Republican propaganda machine was fooling the public. But my filter says Obama can only make his claim about being against the war because he was not under peer and political pressure, and in particular, the pressure of being a Senator from NY State at that. Only someone like Dennis Kucinich can really make the honest claim he stood up against tremendous pressure and actually considered the facts and voted against giving Bush the authority in that vote.

Why cant * Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

make the claim that they stood up against the war? Oh and this is just in the senate. The house has 156 more. These where all the people that knew it was ******** and voted against it despite the pressure. Someone like Lincoln Chaffee had real courage voting against his party unlike Hillary Clinton how had a safe seat and voted for the war anyway.

Your filter says Clinton is a war monger, (or whatever it is you are claiming), my filter says that vote is not indicative of anything except one more incident of experience that a person grows from. I don't see that vote as evidence Clinton is a Margaret Thatcher. My filter still says that with Obama and Clinton being as close as they are in terms of choice, I think the change having a woman President will bring is enough to tip the balance in my decision of who to vote for.

Yes, my "filter" (I forgot to mention how pomo) says she is a war monger because well my filter tends to look at voting records and compare that with their words and promises. Call my filter crazy but when a person votes for bills that have language that allows for war 3 times and than she says she will nuke Iran and get involved in regional conflict, I think she is a war monger. Call me crazy that i think Hillary clinton would be more likely to be bush like in her governing style than anyone else still in the race and by that i mean she will be more secretive and more likely to try to gain power over the other branches and the people. Oh and plus i hate censors.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So you think the content of their underwear IS a better indicator of the likelihood of going to war than their voting record or their public speeches.

I'm sorry but that is simply laughable. You invoke a generalisation that men are more violent than women to justify an assumption that a specific man who spoke against going to war is MORE LIKELY to start a war in the future than a specific woman who voted to go to war.

Sometimes when you are in a hole, it is a good idea to put down the shovel.

I can't see that your interpretation of reality is superior to mine. You want to believe the oversimplification and sound bites and I choose to evaluate the whole picture.

I do believe it is you who are making the laughable assumptions.

I do understand how people take the same information, however, and see different things. When it comes to something like evolution theory, the facts resolved the matter.

When it comes to judging events and people, we all have our filters. You are ignorant to believe your filters are superior. The best you can say is our interpretations differ.

You believe certain things about the vote in this case because you have your lifetime of experiences that lead you to interpret Clinton as a liar and that she must have really been voting for the war. I was paying attention to that vote at that time and I know quite well all the Senators were voting for what Bush asked for, a big stick. It was absolutely not, "yeah, send in the troops".

My lifetime of experience also says Obama is making claims in retrospect and he cannot say how he would have voted because he was not in the same setting. My lifetime of experiences says people are influenced to go with the crowd and it takes a lot to be a Dennis Kucinich and go against the crowd. That is a lot harder than making a single speech against the war with no pressure.

Have you seen the latest Reverend Wright Moyers interview? It will be played in full tomorrow on Bill Moyer's Journal.



Wright speaking about Obama: "He says what he has to say as a politician" ... "He does what politician's do".

That is all I have been saying. Obama is just as much of a politician as the rest of them. That is also what my lifetime of experiences leads me to conclude. I think people believe Obama when he says he is different. I do not believe he is different.

I think Obama is OK. I would certainly prefer his policies and leadership to any Republican, including McCain. But I don't see Obama as some magical figure riding in on his white horse to save the Republic.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... what you are trying to say is because most boys like to play with guns and most girls prefer dolls than Jill likes dolls even if the evidence shows that Jill is on the paint ball team, in the ROTC, the one doll she has is still in the box etc. The general does not lead to conclusions on the specific.

But where you are misstating my position is confusing your own conclusion, Jill is on the paint ball team... with my conclusion, I see no evidence Jill is on the paint ball team. If you draw your conclusion, then you shouldn't use the criteria I am using to chose between two otherwise similar candidates. It is wrong, however, to claim I am making a decision based on your conclusion. I am making a decision based on my conclusion.

... So what are you saying? Are you saying that Hillary Clinton because she is a women is less likely to partake in war than Obama?

Among other things. I am saying that the female point of view has some very subtle differences I think define the difference between these two candidates which I prefer.

... I support Obama i make no secret about that and I dont care why anyone votes the way they do even if on a personal level I wish they did not vote. What I care about is when people make claims that go agianst the evidence such as a person that voted for two wars already along with a bill that is worded in a way to start a third war, calls for the use of nukes against that third country, calls for the possiblity of more wars between states that we have no stake in and recieves alot of money from defense contractors is some how a person more prone to peace because of their gender.

See my post above.

...Nice backhanded complement to Obama supporters there. You have no idea why I am voting for Obama except to make accusations that I am a misogynist

I don't know anything about you so I fail to see how I could have accused you of anything. I said the media, especially Chris Matthews has been overtly misogynistic. He is now backtracking quite a bit however. I think he may have watched some examples of himself a saw how bad he had been, but that is just a guess. He was actually very positive about Clinton today.

... Oh by the way how do you feel about Hillary Clinton wanting to keep non violent drug offenders in prison despite the SC ruling?

If that is her true position I would not agree with it as stated by you here.

...So again you don't look at the individual but the gender? Again if that is personally what you want to base your vote on fine, but don't try to con the rest of us with this ********. Besides Hillary Clinton having a vagina what has she done for women that Obama has said he would not do or ignored? Right off the bat Obama is better for women in the 3rd world than Clinton see treatment of women pre and post invasion Iraq. Clinton's vote for the war was in effect a vote for women to lose the right to drive, work and education. What about a womens right to choose? What did Hillary do when more abortion clinics closed during her husbands presidency than in Regan and Bush's combined?

Now I may have to reconsider that statement I had no knowledge if you were misogynistic or not. This sounds pretty incriminating. Are there people here talking about Obama's penis? Why not? Tossing vagina insults out is on par with a subtle misogynistic attitude just like using the 'b' word, 'witch', "know-it-all woman", and so on. Can you think of some male bashing terms in that same line? See how many times such words come up describing Obama.

...You need to get your filter cleaned. Why is it that Obama knew it was a vote for war http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech . How is it that Kennedy knew it was a vote for war http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/09/27/iraq.kennedy/ yet Hillary Clinton was tricked? How about the 22 other Senators besides Kennedy that voted against it including both men and women how where they able to resist peer pressure?



Why cant * Daniel Akaka (D-Hawaii)
* Jeff Bingaman (D-New Mexico)
* Barbara Boxer (D-California)
* Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia)
* Lincoln Chaffee (R-Rhode Island)
* Kent Conrad (D-North Dakota)
* Jon Corzine (D-New Jersey)
* Mark Dayton (D-Minnesota)
* Dick Durbin (D-Illinois)
* Russ Feingold (D-Wisconsin)
* Bob Graham (D-Florida)
* Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii)
* Jim Jeffords (I-Vermont)
* Ted Kennedy (D-Massachusetts)
* Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont)
* Carl Levin (D-Michigan)
* Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland)
* Patty Murray (D-Washington)
* Jack Reed (D-Rhode Island)
* Paul Sarbanes (D-Maryland)
* Debbie Stabenow (D-Michigan)
* The late Paul Wellstone (D-Minnesota)
* Ron Wyden (D-Oregon)

make the claim that they stood up against the war? Oh and this is just in the senate. The house has 156 more. These where all the people that knew it was ******** and voted against it despite the pressure. Someone like Lincoln Chaffee had real courage voting against his party unlike Hillary Clinton how had a safe seat and voted for the war anyway.

....

None of the no voters were from New York.

 

[Shadowdweller]

None of the no voters were from New York.

11 of the reps who voted no were from New York.

 

[Shadowdweller]

Now I may have to reconsider that statement I had no knowledge if you were misogynistic or not. This sounds pretty incriminating. Are there people here talking about Obama's penis? Why not? Tossing vagina insults out is on par with a subtle misogynistic attitude just like using the 'b' word, 'witch', "know-it-all woman", and so on. Can you think of some male bashing terms in that same line? See how many times such words come up describing Obama.

Merely bringing up the word "vagina" does NOT equate to using it as some sort of slur. You admit that your decision is largely based upon gender. You impute character traits based on gender. Parse things out however you wish, that is, by definition, sexism.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I can't see that your interpretation of reality is superior to mine. You want to believe the oversimplification and sound bites and I choose to evaluate the whole picture.

I say that you should judge the likelihood that each individual would go to war based on their voting record, their history and their speeches.

You say that you should judge them on whether or not they have a penis.

One of us is guilty of oversimplification, but it isn't me.

 

[Jaggy Bunnet]

11 of the reps who voted no were from New York.

Don't confuse the issue by bringing in relevant facts.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Merely bringing up the word "vagina" does NOT equate to using it as some sort of slur. You admit that your decision is largely based upon gender. You impute character traits based on gender. Parse things out however you wish, that is, by definition, sexism.

I asked for equivalent male references and have seen none. No parsing. Care to cite any examples?

Hillary was referred to as riding a broom, as being "a know it all woman" and then vagina is used as if that is what one identifies a woman by.

I would say that proves the point people using those terms are unaware of what they are actually slurring with them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I say that you should judge the likelihood that each individual would go to war based on their voting record, their history and their speeches.

You say that you should judge them on whether or not they have a penis.

One of us is guilty of oversimplification, but it isn't me.

You can toss this straw out, but I've not said anything close to this version. I cannot help that some people reading these posts can only see a distorted version of what I've said. If you like Obama, chances are what I've said irks you.

I do believe this conversation has run its course and is in rerun mode.