rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:18 PM
Original message |
Poll question: Hillary and sexism |
|
Now there are alot of charges and counter charges about sexism and the Hillary campaign.
Some charges are overblown but some are very real.
I am going to ask a simple question.
When referencing an article about Bill criticizing media coverage of Hillary, is the statement "Hillary hides behind her husband's suit coat" as the headline sexist?
|
Madam Mossfern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:22 PM
Response to Original message |
1. No, I don't think it's sexist. |
|
Have any other spouses complained about how the press was dealing with their spouses or do they campaign in a more positive manner?
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #1 |
3. Elizabeth Edwards has complianed about her husband's media ccoverage several times. |
|
And used to chat quite frequently with the press.
Michelle Obama has addressed issues like Obama's popularity with African americans.
Elizabeth Kucinich is perhaps the most outspoken as she does alot of surrogate speaking for Dennis.
|
Madam Mossfern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:38 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
12. So if I said that Edwards is relying on his wife's advocacy, |
|
would that be a sexist statement? Or better yet, that he is hiding behind her cardigan?
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:47 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
22. I'm not sure you could say any of the candidates are relying on their spouses. |
|
All of the spouses are involved, some more than others.
Relying on implies dependence and I think each of the candidates have made their own marks in this campaign even Hillary whose spouse casts the longest shadow.
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #12 |
25. More importantly, Hillary is the only one.. |
|
...who has come out and tired to make a point about just how gosh darn strong she was. This is not the action of a "Strong Woman".
|
Whisp
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:16 PM
Response to Reply #25 |
|
it's Bill that is the sexist one thinkin' his wife needs his protection. I think that was a big mistake on his part and Hillary should advise him thanks but no thanks. Hillary is a strong person and can stand on her own, there is no reason big daddy has to come to her 'rescue' in this way.
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:24 PM
Response to Original message |
2. God Bless Ralph Wiggum |
|
HRC owes it all to her hubby. She wouldn't have ever made it in NYS without him:kick:
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. Or she would have been a Senator years before |
|
Are you suggesting that she's not as capable as Maria Cantwell or any of the other women in the Senate?
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:32 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. That is exactly what I am suggesting my friend |
|
If it wasn't for the Big Dog, she wouldn't have ever been elected from NYS. Perhaps she could have won as some AU H2O conservative in Arkansas or Illinois or where ever she had some roots to call her own. But she would have never gotten on the NYS ballot if it wasn't for her being married to the Big Dog.
HRC is far more capable then most of the US Senators, regardless of sex. She is the real deal and will be the next president. No other Senator can boast such a claim.
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
17. Coulda, woulda, shoulda |
|
I might have made a great career for myself, but I dropped out to be a full time mother. I'm good at what I do now, but I have no illusions that I would have the job I have without my husband's influence. Senator Clinton chose a life path that brought her to prominence as Bill Clinton's wife. Maybe she pushed him to get him to the Presidency, but at best she was the power behind the throne. Pretending that if she had appeared on the scene in New York in 1992 with a resume that included the Rose Law firm, the Children's Defense Fund, campaign manager, White House staff position etc. but no previous political office she would have been taken seriously as a candidate for Senator is ludicrous. It was the fact that she was the former First Lady that made her election possible.
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:55 PM
Response to Reply #17 |
27. of course that's true. |
|
however prior to marrying Clinton she was on a track that could easily have led to her being in elective office. she made her choices, and she's taken advantage of her assets- and being married to Clinton is obviously a big assest. Are you suggesting there's anything wrong with that?
|
hedgehog
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #27 |
39. Nothing wrong with that except for her supporters telling the rest |
|
of us that she got to where she is on her own.
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-05-07 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
41. Maria Cantwell and Olympia Snow got into the Senate on their own |
|
HRC got there through her husbands white house.:kick:
|
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Dec-06-07 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
44. kick for HRC getting to where she is on bigdogs coattails! |
Madam Mossfern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:34 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
8. Is that a sexist statement? |
|
Is it? You used the word "hubby".
|
bunnies
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:30 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:rofl:
Wait. Do I even have a wookie? :shrug:
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
7. I have a rule about doing polls. |
|
A Ralph Wiggum quote must be a choice.
|
bunnies
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #7 |
9. Its brilliant I tell ya. |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:35 PM
Response to Original message |
10. Not if it an apt discription of what Hillary is doing. |
sufrommich
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #10 |
14. Hillary went into hiding? |
|
I could have swore I heard her at the debate today.She can speak for herself and is "hiding"behind nobody.
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:49 PM
Response to Reply #14 |
23. I'm very sorry that analogies go over your head. |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:36 PM
Response to Original message |
11. Why does Team Hillary feel the need to make these dopey little polls? |
|
Referencing other threads? It's clearly a violation of DU rules, not to mention they come off as pathetic and whiney.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
13. Cockroaches hate the light. |
sufrommich
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #15 |
19. You have a pretty low sense of humor |
Madam Mossfern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
16. What does that mean? n/t |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:40 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
18. Don't get to full of yourself. |
|
If I cared about the light I wouldn't have created the thread in question on a public message board.
|
mtnsnake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #13 |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:51 PM
Response to Reply #20 |
24. Is it a rule that Team Hillary has to support one anothers lame insults... |
|
that really make no sense giving the fact I posted the orginal thread on a public forum?
|
mtnsnake
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:59 PM
Response to Reply #24 |
29. Yikes, Wolsh, I think some of your own comrades are voting against you in this poll |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 05:59 PM by mtnsnake
by the looks of the results.
Not a good day when you come up on the short end in a Hillary poll. :evilgrin:
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
21. oh, poor little you. feeling picked on? go hide behind your mommie's |
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:54 PM
Response to Reply #21 |
26. So using your logic, what you just said is sexist |
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #26 |
28. bwahaha. I'm mocking you |
|
and actually it's not sexist. I'm treating you as a child. Does that make me "childist"?
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #28 |
30. So if I had said that Hillary was hiding behind her big Daddy's suit coat... |
|
...in a mocking tone, you wouldn't have taken any exception to that?
|
cali
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:05 PM
Response to Reply #30 |
31. you can't even tell the difference between my mocking you |
|
and the sexist crap you pull. it's just pathetic. She's running for president. He came out today and said he thinks the press coverage of her is lousy. It's really no different than when Elizabeth Edwards was the one defending JE against Ann Coulter and other detractors. Did you accuse him of hiding behind her skirt? No? Why not. It's simply sexist to accuse Hillary of hiding behind her husband.
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:14 PM
Response to Reply #31 |
32. Once again, I'm going to ask you, do you think your reactionary squawking really endears Hillary |
|
to voters? I ask, because its the same bullshit whining that has gotten Hillary into this mess she's in the early states.
Second of all, I have CLEARLY addressed why this isn't the same as Michelle or Elizabeth near the top of this thread. Go read it.
Thirdly, you make a sexist (using your hairbrained logic) comment towards me and then hide behind the guise of "mocking" me. That's absurd.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #32 |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 06:18 PM by rinsd
So because Hillary said she was a strong woman she cannot have her spouse defend her but men such as Edwards or Obama, who don't have to tout their strength as much being men, can have their spouses defend them?
Is that the sum of your argument?
|
Madam Mossfern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #33 |
36. I didn't think that Hillary saying that she was a strong woman |
|
was emphasizing her gender. Maybe she should have said she was a strong person instead. If Obama says he's a strong man, I don't take that as a statement of his gender. Am I making myself clear...I'm confusing myself here, but I know what I mean.
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:24 PM
Response to Reply #36 |
37. Did you get confused? |
|
Edited on Tue Dec-04-07 06:26 PM by rinsd
Because I was talking to Wolsh.
|
Joe the Revelator
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 07:14 PM
Response to Reply #37 |
38. A good point was made however.... |
|
Hillary saying she is strong has nothing to do with her being a woman. She needs to ACT strong and not have others go out to fight her battles for her. She has been doing this the entire campaign, not only with Bill, but with other cronies.
|
Madam Mossfern
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-05-07 12:12 AM
Response to Reply #37 |
40. If you are looking for a private conversation |
|
perhaps you should e-mail. Does this forum have a PM function?
|
rinsd
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-05-07 02:54 PM
Response to Reply #40 |
42. Not looking for a private coversation. |
|
I just figured you were confused as to which handle you were using since you continued Wolsh's commentary.
|
annie1
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Wed Dec-05-07 07:01 PM
Response to Reply #11 |
43. considering most people chose they find it sexist... |
|
isn't it worth exploring?
|
Bucky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Tue Dec-04-07 06:18 PM
Response to Original message |
35. I think it was a weak take off on "hiding behind his mama's apron" |
|
If there's any sexism to be mined from such a trivial statement, it's still not worth worrying about. I assume from the OP that you've run out of real things to talk about.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Tue Apr 30th 2024, 02:42 AM
Response to Original message |