Is Clinton loosing cause she's a woman?

[Janster]

A thought went through my head today while I was slaving at work.
For years its always been the 'hard' men at work in the white house...it is so that Clinton is considered 'soft' that she's loosing to Obama?

And is this softness coming from the fact that she's a woman?

I'd honestly like to see a woman in the whitehouse, there have been strong men for ages now, and not all of these 'strong' men did much good.

Jan

[Lum]

No.

45

[Machfive]

Nope.

[Sarkus]

No. If anything, she come's across as being too hard.

[David Hellman]

... But does she seem too hard because she's a woman?

[Funkula]

I don't think her looseness is really any of our business. However, if we're going to speculate, I'll point out that she has given birth, so chances are she is looser than some.

[Lum]

But would she be loose if she were a man?

[balut]

What exactly is Hillary "loosing" upon Obama? Flying monkeys?

More seriously, though. No. Clinton comes across as a hard, uncharismatic Washington insider shrew. Soft is one of the last words I'd use to describe Clinton.

[rhinohelix]

Is "loosiness" like "truthiness"?

I don't think it has anything to do with her femininity. I think Clinton is losing at this point because her aura of inevitability is gone and the way she had positioned herself up to this point. She was riding high on name recognition (like Guiliani) and then the dam burst because people had to actually go vote for a nominee rather than a President.

I think she is the most establishment candidate in the Democratic field, as well as the most centrist (wow, that is weird to say). Being so far ahead that she thought she could start running the general before the nomination has really cost her, as Obama is a more "pure" liberal candidate, both in his positions and his background, in comparison to Clinton, Inc.

I don't know that I like the way that one victory in a small state pretty much sets you up to run the table or at least makes you credible in ways you otherwise wouldn't be.

I mean, it's not game over for Mrs. Clinton but the odds are stacked against her now. Even if she was strong on the ground in other states, better suited to address that state's issues, she would still stagger in the current state's race due to the mind/media space from the previous election. The myth doth make the man, as event are responded to as they are perceived to be real. Although, I don't mean that in sexist way.

I am watching in horror as McCain and Huckabee appear to be getting ready to role. That Mitt is the small government conservative choice this go around on the R side, that speaks volumes.

I could do with some "loosiness" to spread around on the man from Hope. The other one, that is.

[Dirt]

Yes and no.

[Marcus]

No.

Its because she is a bitch.

[Brad Grenz]

No.

She's losing cause she's so damn fake.

[Flowers]

Her positions are shit. She has sacrificed at the altar of political expediency a few too many times, and that hurts you in the primaries, where every dipshit and their pollster cousin insists that you have to lean radical. No amount of leaning radical can help her, even when Barak Obama goes and says stupid shit about attacking Iran, she still came forward in support of invading Iraq.

She went along with it because she figured that she'd lose an election if she seemed too chickenshit. Way to play with other people's lives, jackass.

She also bakes shitty cookies and her daughter punched me in the face once.

[Rimbo]

I'd honestly like to see a woman in the whitehouse, there have been strong men for ages now, and not all of these 'strong' men did much good.

Jan

Voting for her because she's a woman is an act equal in nature and in kind to voting against her because she's a woman. Equally stupid, that is.

People aren't voting against her because she's a woman. People are voting against her because they're voting for Obama, Edwards and others. Also, she's got a reputation for dishonesty and an apparent willingness to acquire power for its own sake.

Oh... and she's basically a hardcore socialist.

[NowhereDan]

She's sponsored anti-game legislation in spite of being fully aware of the dozen or so states that have had similar laws struck down by the courts as unconstitutional. That's more than enough to make me question her dedication to upholding the Constitution, and there are other options. As for the rest of the voting public, well, maybe they're misogynistic jackasses who haven't even bothered to read into the situation.

[Aeon221]

I'm not voting for her because she's screwed up one time too many. Plus, she went from a commanding lead in the polls to crap. Pathetic, especially when you consider that polling well is her primary goal. I'd rather have someone who isn't a floating failbot run the country, thanks.


I am watching in horror as McCain and Huckabee appear to be getting ready to role.

I like how you insulted the OP twice, but still managed to have an error in your own post.

[Rogen]

She's not a woman, she is a malevolent robocunt from the year 2000.

As for her being loose, well, that's the least of her problems.

[Anders Hallin]

It's basically impossible to say. Whoever denies that her being a woman has a significant impact is probably deluding themselves, but to what degree? In my opinion, it affects every aspect she is regarded in, because the world is undeniably gendered, but the intensity of it can't be measured.
Take people regarding her sense of humour. She is, as far as I've seen, not allowed to have one (since then she's a cackling shrew), but she must have one. When it comes to military matters, she must show she's "as strong as a man," but she must follow certain standards of femininity (otherwise she's a cold bitch).
And so on.

That said, she's the most centrist candidate, so the Dem primary voters probably wouldn't vote for her that easily anyway. Though they voted for Bill.

[Anders Hallin]

Should probably point out that my post goes for pretty much all of media and people, not just for the 25% (as in this thread) who go on rants laced with misogyny.

[Brian Rucker]

Actually, her positions and Obama's on most issues really aren't that far off. What's selling me on Obama is mostly his presentation and his message. Tactically, as well, I like the idea the GOP is in a panic trying to figure out what to do with this genuine phenomenon rather than just sticking needles into their old, worn-out, Hillary voodoo doll. And, as others have pointed out, Clinton's deliberate positioning on so many issues and, frankly, triangulation - whether cynical or not, just strikes me as false.

There are alot of things I really, really, hate about the Bush administration. The biggest one though is the telling dishonesty. I really would be happier going to bed at night at least believing the person leading the country, the most powerful country in the world, wasn't so scared of the electorate they couldn't level with us or make honest decisions without worrying about how that will harm their reelection chances.

I've seen the Rovian way. I'm ready for something new.

That said, I'd still take Clinton in a national election against any Republican candidate. Institutionally, those guys need some quiet time in the corner.

[Warning]

It's basically impossible to say. Whoever denies that her being a woman has a significant impact is probably deluding themselves, but to what degree? In my opinion, it affects every aspect she is regarded in, because the world is undeniably gendered, but the intensity of it can't be measured.
Take people regarding her sense of humour. She is, as far as I've seen, not allowed to have one (since then she's a cackling shrew), but she must have one. When it comes to military matters, she must show she's "as strong as a man," but she must follow certain standards of femininity (otherwise she's a cold bitch).
And so on.
Aren't there women who have a sense of humor without being a cackling shrew?

[Midnight Son]

I'd like the next president to not be a Bush or a Clinton. Just because dynasties are revolting.

[Janster]

I seriously doubt Obama can win the proper election coming up..

While I do belive Clinton would have a fair shot, Obama does not...
So then its another round of republican spend crazy people..

It has always puzzled me why people think that 'conservative' spend 'less' when they are actually been the big spender.

National deficit is insane atm..and rising, military budget is out of control, but another 4-8 years with a republican can be outright dangerous imho.

Anyway, I still belive she's taking flak cause of predjustice, and certainly the republicans will fire the 'soft' target flak when they can at her...as Obama prolly has more indirectly.

Be cautious of 'strong' leaders, there is a diffrence between steel and iron...one bends other breaks.

Jan

[Brian Rucker]

Well, I know which one is melting down...

[Hugin]

Well, considering in this thread she's been called a bitch, a shrew twice, and a cunt, yeah, being a woman is part of it. But not all of it.

Some people are tired of the Clintons, some people don't like her advisors and the way she's campaigned, some people just don't find her very charismatic/persuasive (she's not as good as Obama or Bill at the personal politics thing).

[Ben Sones]

What exactly is Hillary "loosing" upon Obama? Flying monkeys?


Thread winner.

[Mike O'Malley]

She also bakes shitty cookies and her daughter punched me in the face once.

You had it coming after that donkeypunch.

Also, not voting for Hillary because she's an insider who claims partial credit for her husband's accomplishments. Be that as it may, is she going to share the spotlight with Bill if/when she gets elected? If she's trying to position the Presidency as a family job, are we voting for both of them or just her? She wiggles around this issue.

[Anti-Bunny]

Yes.

Wait, I meant no.

[Rogen]

Well, considering in this thread she's been called a bitch, a shrew twice, and a cunt, yeah, being a woman is part of it. But not all of it.

A robocunt.

[MikeJ]

I seriously doubt Obama can win the proper election coming up..

While I do belive Clinton would have a fair shot, Obama does not...

How did you come to this belief?

[Njal]

How did you come to this belief?

I too would like to hear why you think this. Otherwise the only evidence you produce is your poor spelling and grammar.

[Hawkeye Fierce]

I remember some polls showing Obama winning handily against any of the GOP candidates. Those are probably out of date by now, but it's not like he's gotten weaker in the meantime.

[ravenight]

Yeah, the head to head polls on realclearpolitics put Obama ahead of any republican besides McCain. I would bet that Obama would poll better than McCain right now, though Huckabee might be stronger too (most of the polls are from the Dec/Nov period).

[Lizard_King]

Aren't there women who have a sense of humor without being a cackling shrew?
Not women in positions of power, no. It's a rare line of work where a woman isn't singled out for particularly femininized flaws. Even if there are valid criticisms to be made, it has so much more zaz if you go the extra mile (and really, who doesn't love to put effort into these things) to make sure she's degraded as a woman as well as criticized as a whatever she does.

And yeah, I think that's a factor in Clinton's difficulties. I also think she chose poorly in terms of the way she set up her campaign and the way she presented herself, but I still think she has a good chance because she is, after all, a good candidate. And by that I mean that *I* would vote for her, despite having key points of disagreement with her platform.

Like I said earlier, though, I think the entire modern republican machine is designed around attacking Clinton(s). I suspect it could work out either way, with their focus on Clinton causing them not to be able to engage Obama as well, or people getting tired of it and backlashing against the latest Hillary conspiracy theory/19th century psychoanalysis. But a year ago I never would have expected Obama to be the primary obstacle, which he is fast becoming...which is really the kind of bad news I can live with.

[triggercut]

I seriously doubt Obama can win the proper election coming up..

While I do belive Clinton would have a fair shot, Obama does not...


I'm sorry Hillary supporter, but your viral marketing has failed due to bad spelling and an magnificent ignorance of current polling data.

[Rogen]

I'd rather gouge out my right eye than have Hillary Clinton as president. She completely embodies everything I hate about American politics. Really. EVERYTHING, I, HATE.

All these people who think she's a viable candidate, I can't even understand what kind of eyes you are looking out at the world through. I really just can't. I am completely serious when I say that given the choice I'd rather have a mentally retarded person, or even an insane person in office rather than someone like her. She is as nonviable for the role of president of the USA as any human can be, except maybe for someone like Guiliani, who is mostly the same personality type but with a different group of friends. And somehow he's also getting himself considered as a candidate for the job.

And just so you know where I'm coming from, I voted for Bush in 2000, having a very good idea how terrible he was and how dangerous he was. Even knowing what I know now, I'd vote for him in 2000, because the only other choice was a ticket with JOE LIEBERMAN on it. I loved Gore, but when it comes down to it I'd actually rather have an elitist protofascist who can't even form a coherent sentence as president than let someone like Lieberman have even the opportunity to take over the office should Gore kick the bucket. And as much as I hate everything that Bush has done, and I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone voted for him in 2004, to this day I feel like we all dodged a bullet by keeping Lieberman out, even if it meant letting Darth Cheney in.

That's just how much I hate that kind of "populist" pandering, condescending, two-faced, cynical power-grabbing and playing of politics for its own sake. At least Cheney has evil and selfish interests that he persues through evil and selfish means. It's atrocious, but at least it's rational; in his own mind, what he's doing probably makes sense, and it should. His decisions and his actions fit in perfectly with his neocon world view.

Someone like Hillary or Joe Lieberman on the other hand would do anything, betray any principle, or pull any scam for the sake of more power and more influence. I really see that kind of runaway ambition as a kind of virus that our system of government is especially susceptible to and that we need to guard against.

Or maybe I'm wrong about them. But that's the impression that I've always gotten from Hillary and Lieberman both, and everything I've seen from them has only reinforced the idea.

[Lizard_King]

I'm pretty sure you, as a voter, embody much (if far from all) that I hate about American politics. So that probably sums up what kind of "eyes" you need to vote for Hillary.

[Brian Rucker]

I think we have the kind of eyes we value too much to gouge out. Unless someone's handing out cybernetic eyes. That'd be kind of cool. Maybe if Ron Paul went that way instead of going for the blimp...

[Njal]

Someone like Hillary or Joe Lieberman on the other hand would do anything, betray any principle, or pull any scam for the sake of more power and more influence. I really see that kind of runaway ambition as a kind of virus that our system of government is especially susceptible to and that we need to guard against.

Or maybe I'm wrong about them. But that's the impression that I've always gotten from Hillary and Lieberman both, and everything I've seen from them has only reinforced the idea.

Why you think that is different than what Bush/Cheney have done baffles me.

[Lizard_King]

Why you think that is different than what Bush/Cheney have done baffles me.
That's not what's baffling. What's mindboggling is how that's worse than Bush/Cheney.

[Janster]

I'm sorry Hillary supporter, but your viral marketing has failed due to bad spelling and an magnificent ignorance of current polling data.

Even if that was national polling data you just pulled out of your hat, it doesn't say shit, I duely belive he will be shot down in the first round vs any republican.

As for the dude who compared Clinton with Evil, uhm I'm quite sure any republican can match that , and then you will be eating his shit for 8 years.

Janster

[Hawkeye Fierce]

Even if that was national polling data you just pulled out of your hat, it doesn't say shit, I duely belive he will be shot down in the first round vs any republican.

You must have looked that up in your gut.

[Stroker Ace]

I've got to admit that I'm a little intimidated by Janster's no-nonsense approach to politics. Hopefully some of Qt3's brightest minds can stand tall and play devil's advocate to Jan's feel-bad arguments.

[Anaxagoras]

I'd rather gouge out my right eye than have Hillary Clinton as president.

We want pictures.

Go Clinton! Go Clinton!

[extarbags]

You must have looked that up in your gut.

I wonder if that's also where he learned that our presidential elections are divided into ten grueling rounds, each with a different theme and environmental hazard.

[Dirt]

No.

Its because she is a bitch.
Can't be a bitch without being a woman.

[Njal]

That's not what's baffling. What's mindboggling is how that's worse than Bush/Cheney.
Yeah, that too.

[Drastic]

I think we have the kind of eyes we value too much to gouge out. Unless someone's handing out cybernetic eyes. That'd be kind of cool. Maybe if Ron Paul went that way instead of going for the blimp...
I will vote for anyone who gives me cybernetic eyes. Once that comes to pass, that would become my single-issue decider.

[VegasRobb]

Nah. Nothing to do with her gender. I think pre-Senator Clinton was a *much* better candidate and much closer to what we're seeing in Obama and Edwards today.

All she really picked up during her time in the Senate was a nice retirement package. Nothing she's done there is helping her win the primaries.

[BlueJackalope]

Even if that was national polling data you just pulled out of your hat, it doesn't say shit, I duely belive he will be shot down in the first round vs any republican.

Janster

The general election is held in rounds? I hope there is a three knock down rule and they use the lightweight gloves. The Dems should lobby for a big ring to give Obama a chance to show his fancy footwork, sweeping oratory skills and Mayweather like counterpunch.

PS I duely believe I like the cut of this Janster's jib. Ceep posting you crazy diamond. Ceep Posting

[Mister Widget]

It takes more than one reason to replace double-digit leads with double-digit losses. I'm sure she loses some votes for being female -- but her campaign still makes a big deal about how she is going to gain among woman voters, just for being female.

If she was (for example), Bill Clinton's brother or nephew, she'd still have the following flaws:

-- She comes across as insincere and calculating, taking her positions and choosing her words based entirely on the results of focus groups and polls, not principle. This perception would hurt any candidate, regardless of gender.

-- She embodies the attack dog politics that we've been living with for the past 15 years. As Lizard_King points out, the whole Republican machine is fine-tuned to go after anyone named Clinton, and her campaign machine is equally on a hair trigger the other direction, ready to sling mud with the best of them. People are tired of that whole dynamic, regardless of gender.

-- She's only gotten where she is by virtue of her family connections. On her own merits, she was a rainmaking corporate lawyer. She was First Lady only because of Bill Clinton: I know I was voting for him and not her back in the 90's. Her election to the Senate was also because of Bill Clinton, which would be less of an issue if she'd done it in Arkansas; doing it in New York really made it clear that it was all about Bill Clinton's national fame. This kind of nepotism simply doesn't sell well; many people are disgusted by the idea of national Bush-Clinton dynasties.

Add it all up, and you get an unappealing candidate who happens to be female.

[extarbags]

I'm sure she loses some votes for being female

I agree with the rest of your post, but not this part; she's been female for most or all of this whole campaign.

[Ergo]

I'd like the next president to not be a Bush or a Clinton. Just because dynasties are revolting. I agree with this one hundred percent.

[BobJustBob]

Can't be a bitch without being a woman.

Bitch is the feminine form of shithead.

[RepoMan]

She also bakes shitty cookies and her daughter punched me in the face once.
Only once? I'm gonna have words with that girl.

[triggercut]

It'll be a first round duely.

I cannot wait. Pistols at dawn, winner gets sworn in?

[Stroker Ace]

Pistils.

[triggercut]

Flour power.

[SlyFrog]

Of course she is losing because she is a woman.

Man Finally Put In Charge Of Struggling Feminist Movement (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/man_finally_put_in_charge_of)

[BlueJackalope]

Flour power.

New Clear Pour

On the serious tip. Gwen Ifil interviewed Obama and Clinton back to back last night. Obama rejected Hillary's charge that he was peddling "false hope" with uplifting, we're all in this together and we can do better, now who's with me, oratory, in a clear converstational tone.

Clinton, even in a one-on-one converstational interview, uses a pendantic, school-marm (I've used the same word to describe Al Gore's oratory skills, not being sexist) spreaking to six year olds, lecturing style.

[Dirt]

She really needs to emulate her husband more.

[Marcus]

By getting more Blow jobs?

[Flowers]

I agree with Rogen. I expect my opponent's candidate to betray Constitutional principles as I see them, and to lead the nation to ruin. However, I don't expect that the candidate campaigning for my support would do the same. I want my candidate to oppose the other party's candidate. If I didn't, I'd be in the other party.

She is like Lieberman, asking the Democrats to support her after thumbing her nose at them on important issues. Well, it's not her way or the highway, it's our way or the highway.

[Rimbo]

Take people regarding her sense of humour. She is, as far as I've seen, not allowed to have one (since then she's a cackling shrew), but she must have one.

Aside from expert opinions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7153584.stm) or peer-reviewed research (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/news/2006/01/30/29236.shtml) that demonstrates that there is a perfectly natural difference to how humor relates to women vs. men, it's enough to say that this particular woman is a cackling shrew, and that most women are not.

When it comes to military matters, she must show she's "as strong as a man," but she must follow certain standards of femininity (otherwise she's a cold bitch).
And so on.

Hardly. I think what you're talking about here shows the precise problem with her image. She is being marketed for the role as one would market a man, rather than being marketed the way one should market a woman for the role. Men are perfectly happy having a woman run their lives -- this is why we get married. But most of us, given the option to marry Hillary Clinton or eat a bowl of rusty razor blades, would have to think for a minute... before choosing the blades.

That said, she's the most centrist candidate, so the Dem primary voters probably wouldn't vote for her that easily anyway. Though they voted for Bill.

She's "Centrist" in the same way that Ron Paul is a Socialist. She is the champion of the Nanny State, the staunchest proponent strong central government even to the point of ignoring the Constitutional limitations of office, with a willingness to do anything to get elected. In short, she is George W. Bush, but instead of hiding her big-government anti-freedom aspirations behind pro-freedom small-government rhetoric, she actually wrote a fucking book on it (http://www.amazon.com/Takes-Village-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/0684825457).

[JeffL]

"Is Clinton losing because she's a woman?"

I think, if you ask that question, you have to ask if Edwards is losing because he's a man with black hair, is Richardson losing because he's chubby, did Biden lose because he has grey hair?

In other words - why does there have to be some special reason that people are preferring Obama (and in Iowa, Edwards) to Clinton? As if, well, she SHOULD win, so something must be going on under the surface.

I've read several analyses that have said, quite simply, that she's just a very average candidate with a very famous last name. Why should anyone prefer her to, say, Richardson? He has more experience of every type - Washington, foreign policy, actual face to face negotiation experience with contentious heads of state, etc. Why would we expect her to be a more powerful candidate than Edwards? In other words - what lead to this expectation that she was going to be this super presidential candidate that would blow everyone away? She's not a super orator, she's not that great in interviews and in fact for most of her run has refused to allow Q&A at her meetings and rallies, she has kept the media away from her other than very planned occasions, she doesn't really have any super accomplishments that make her stand out from other candidates, etc.

But I see the Clinton campaign asking the same kinds of questions: is it because the media is mean to her? Is it because she's a woman? And so on, but to ask such questions I think presumes that she is the automatic and default winner as opposed to her having to go out and earn the win.

[Dirt]

She is like Lieberman, asking the Democrats to support her after thumbing her nose at them on important issues. Well, it's not her way or the highway, it's our way or the highway.
She's a damn centrist.

[Rimbo]

I remember some polls showing Obama winning handily against any of the GOP candidates. Those are probably out of date by now, but it's not like he's gotten weaker in the meantime.

Yes because we all know that such polls are the Word of God.

<-- still pissed about that complete fucking loser Kerry getting the '04 nomination because someone somewhere did a poll that made it look like he had the best chance of winning back in February of '04. Gee, too bad the election was held in November, you dumbshit cocksucking Democrat fuckheads, virtually guaranteeing 4 more years of GWB.

[madkevin]

Men are perfectly happy having a woman run their lives -- this is why we get married.

What's it like posting from 1957?

[Dirt]

I posted once on OO asking if a woman should take her husband's name. There are still a lot of very "conservative" ideas about women and her place out there.

[Rimbo]

What's it like posting from 1957?

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. So you're saying that women had all the power and ran men's lives in 1957?

[Unicorn McGriddle]

To the OP: no.

[extarbags]

I'm not even sure what this is supposed to mean. So you're saying that women had all the power and ran men's lives in 1957?

I think he's saying that was the last time that joke was funny.

[NoWayJose]

"Is Clinton losing because she's a woman?"

I think, if you ask that question, you have to ask if Edwards is losing because he's a man with black hair, is Richardson losing because he's chubby, did Biden lose because he has grey hair? This is a good point, and brings back some memories. I remember when I was five, and I asked my dad if we would ever have a president with grey hair. My dad (who was going grey at the time) put down his dishtowel and looked out the window. "Maybe someday, son," he said. "Maybe someday."

When he found out Reagan dyed his hair, it just about killed him. "He's betraying our whole gender!"
My mom looked up from her tax work. "Gender?"
"Race?"

I'm just sorry my dad isn't here today to see a grey haired man run for president. I mean here in California. He's in Florida.

[madkevin]

I think he's saying that was the last time that joke was funny.

Bingo. I guess next time I'll link to a bad webcomic to help Rimbo parse it.

[Rimbo]

I think he's saying that was the last time that joke was funny.

Who's joking? Which part of what I said was a joke?

[madkevin]

I guess I was giving you too much credit. If your marriage is based on your wife running your life, you're even sadder than I thought.

[Dirt]

I guess I was giving you too much credit. If your marriage is based on your wife running your life, you're even sadder than I thought.
Hrm... What's wrong with his wife running his life?

[madkevin]

What's wrong with Japan running yours?

[Dirt]

What's wrong with Japan running yours?
Apart from the ethnic cleansing?

It never ceases to amaze me how sexist comments like yours are still so accepted. You will never hear someone say, "If you let a black man man be your boss, then you're sadder than I thought." You seem to accept your comment as the natural order of things. It really highlights how entrenched ideas of unequal gender roles continue to be.

[Njal]

I let my wife run my life, it's very relaxing. She works in a bank so she does all the household finances. She does 90% of the social planning because I'm generally happy enough lazing around playing games.

I only assert myself if I really want something or I really disagree with her. Since she is very smart and even tempered this works out fine for me.

[madkevin]

It never ceases to amaze me how sexist comments like yours are still so accepted. You will never hear someone say, "If you let a black man man be your boss, then you're sadder than I thought." You seem to accept your comment as the natural order of things. It really highlights how entrenched ideas of unequal gender roles continue to be.

What the holy fuck are you talking about? Rimbo's comment is the sexist one, not mine. I believe marriage should be a partnership of equals, not one where one member gets to run the other one's life. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how that could possibly be construed as sexist?

[extarbags]

It never ceases to amaze me how sexist comments like yours are still so accepted. You will never hear someone say, "If you let a black man man be your boss, then you're sadder than I thought." You seem to accept your comment as the natural order of things. It really highlights how entrenched ideas of unequal gender roles continue to be.

Unless, just maybe, he was intimating that healthy relationships aren't based on one parting controlling the other's life? Nahhhh.

Apart from the ethnic cleansing?

The irony here is that you don't realize that, with every post, you make people more and more inclined to wish the ethnic cleansing you're talking about had gone just a little further.

[ravenight]

Right, well, people who let their wives run their lives can't be sexist. Actually, it seems that not letting someone else run your life means you are biased against whatever characteristic distinguishes them.

[Dirt]

What the holy fuck are you talking about? Rimbo's comment is the sexist one, not mine. I believe marriage should be a partnership of equals, not one where one member gets to run the other one's life. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how that could possibly be construed as sexist?
I'm talking about your inference that a man who let's his wife control his life is sad.

In a relationship with 2 people, what is equal? She may run his life because she's more organized than he is (as Njal says about his wife). Rimbo may fulfill other responsibilities that he is best at and his wife is not. Equal, in a marriage, isn't just 1 thing.

Without knowing more about Rimbo's marriage, your comment taken at face value is sexist. Or you were just being an asshole.

[biclops]

In a relationship with 2 people, what is equal? She may run his life because she's more organized than he is (as Njal says about his wife). Rimbo may fulfill other responsibilities that he is best at and his wife is not. Equal, in a marriage, isn't just 1 thing.
This is the point in the discussion where you are supposed to take a moment and read through the last 20 posts again and realize you are being ridiculous. Go ahead, try it.

Please.

[madkevin]

Right, well, people who let their wives run their lives can't be sexist.

Right. But what Rimbo did was attribute that desire to all men, everywhere - that all men get married to have a woman run their life. Which is patently, obviously untrue.

[Dirt]

This is the point in the discussion where you are supposed to take a moment and read through the last 20 posts again and realize you are being ridiculous. Go ahead, try it.

Please.
Rimbo made a sexist comment. madkevin's is equally sexist. The difference is that madkevin's comment marginalizes women and their (possible) role in a marriage. There's no reason for a man who let's (key word) his wife run his life to be viewed as sad. Especially if that is a role that is suitable to her skills and personality.

[ravenight]

Right. But what Rimbo did was attribute that desire to all men, everywhere - that all men get married to have a woman run their life. Which is patently, obviously untrue.

I guess I left my tags at home. "My wife runs my life, she's so smart" = "I have plenty of black friends"

[madkevin]

Rimbo made a sexist comment. madkevin's is equally sexist. The difference is that madkevin's comment marginalizes women and their (possible) role in a marriage. There's no reason for a man who let's (key word) his wife run his life to be viewed as sad.

Jesus, now I know why people don't talk to you. I believe marriage should be a partnership and that marginalizes women? Are you high?

[biclops]

What's wrong with being sexy?

[madkevin]

I guess I left my tags at home. "My wife runs my life, she's so smart" = "I have plenty of black friends"

Whoops. It would appear that there's plenty of miscommunication to go around in this thread.

[Hugin]

Rimbo made a sexist comment. madkevin's is equally sexist. The difference is that madkevin's comment marginalizes women and their (possible) role in a marriage. There's no reason for a man who let's (key word) his wife run his life to be viewed as sad. Especially if that is a role that is suitable to her skills and personality.

Look, how many times do I have to say this? The actor's name is Naveen Andrews, and the british accent is real.

[Dirt]

Jesus, now I know why people don't talk to you. I believe marriage should be a partnership and that marginalizes women? Are you high?
I'm asking you again: What's wrong with a marriage that's a partnership where the woman has the skills to run the man's life (because he's hopeless in doing it himself) and the man fulfills other responsibilities? Would you also label that man "sad"?

[Njal]

For a change I agree with Dirt. Every marriage has a different arrangement and mine for instance has lasted for 24 happy years.

[biclops]

I think you are confusing "Running a man's life" with "Scheduling a man's tasks"

[Hugin]

I'm asking you again: What's wrong with a marriage that's a partnership where the woman has the skills to run the man's life (because he's hopeless in doing it himself) and the man fulfills other responsibilities? Would you also label that man "sad"?

Yes, not being able to run your own life is kind of sad, regardless of the gender of your partner or if you're single. It's fortuitous if such a person can find a loving partner who can take care of them, but it's still kind of sad.

[madkevin]

I'm asking you again: What's wrong with a marriage that's a partnership where the woman has the skills to run the man's life (because he's hopeless in doing it himself) and the man fulfills other responsibilities? Would you also label that man "sad"?

Other people have already answered this, but "running someone's life" implies that the person is incapable of running his or her own. This is fine if the relationship is between, say, a parent and a small child. It's not ok if the relationship is between two grown adults.

And if that wasn't bad enough, Rimbo then painted all men everywhere as wanting this and only this from marriage. You know what you call it when you assign an attribute to all people of one gender?

[Njal]

Bah this is all internet miscommunication. Everybody is right. I can run my life and have for long periods. Lighten up everybody.

[Rimbo]

What the holy fuck are you talking about? Rimbo's comment is the sexist one, not mine. I believe marriage should be a partnership of equals, not one where one member gets to run the other one's life. Perhaps you'd like to explain to me how that could possibly be construed as sexist?

No, your point of view isn't sexist. It's imaginary.

[madkevin]

No, you're thinking about your relationship with God.

[Dirt]

Well, there are studies that do support the fact that a married man is more successful and lives longer.

[Rimbo]

No, you're thinking about your relationship with God.

Boy, you changed the subject fast!

[Anaxagoras]

Jesus, now I know why people don't talk to you. I believe marriage should be a partnership and that marginalizes women? Are you high?

No. He's just very, very stupid.

[madkevin]

Boy, you changed the subject fast!

Yes, because clearly the foundation of equal partnership upon which I've built my marriage is imaginary. That's the kind of conversation that's really worth continuing.

[Raife]

When either Rimbo or Dirt are the primaries in a discussion, it's better just to walk away. Both of them together? You guys might as well just stab yourselves in the brain.

[Lizard_King]

Bah this is all internet miscommunication. Everybody is right. I can run my life and have for long periods. Lighten up everybody.
Actually, it's a competition to see who can be the most creatively offended. We have an unprecedented level of skill on display here, and I applaud all of the contestants. It's going to be a tough one to judge.

On the one hand I want give madkevin the edge for taking the initiative and spicing it up with the Japanese and god, but I really like Dirt: Affirmative Actor Edition. With any luck something definitive will come up soon.

[Rimbo]

Yes, because clearly the foundation of equal partnership upon which I've built my marriage is imaginary. That's the kind of conversation that's really worth continuing.

She allows you to believe you're an equal partner. It's a wise thing to do, due to the limitations on our personalities that our testosterone-driven egos impose on us.

Edit: It's just like when she asks you, "Does this dress make me look fat?" But in the opposite direction. :)

[Dirt]

No. He's just very, very stupid.
Coward.

On the one hand I want give madkevin the edge for taking the initiative and spicing it up with the Japanese and god, but I really like Dirt: Affirmative Actor Edition. With any luck something definitive will come up soon.
Hitler.

[Lum]

http://www.morsa.net/what_the.jpg

[Rimbo]

Rimbo then painted all men everywhere as wanting this and only this from marriage.

There is no other reason; otherwise, you could simply live together in a committed sexual relationship without actually getting married.

[Rimbo]

Hitler.

Dammit, just as this thread was getting fun, you had to go and Godwin it.

[Njal]

Actually, it's a competition to see who can be the most creatively offended. We have an unprecedented level of skill on display here, and I applaud all of the contestants. It's going to be a tough one to judge.

On the one hand I want give madkevin the edge for taking the initiative and spicing it up with the Japanese and god, but I really like Dirt: Affirmative Actor Edition. With any luck something definitive will come up soon.

As usual LK you have enlightened this poor old man, thank you for your perspicacious commenary.

[Dirt]

When either Rimbo or Dirt are the primaries in a discussion, it's better just to walk away. Both of them together? You guys might as well just stab yourselves in the brain.
I'm going to have to get a man-sized tweezer made.

[Rimbo]

Anyway, back on topic. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/portrait-in-cynicism-hil_b_80289.html)

[Lizard_King]

Yes, because clearly the foundation of equal partnership upon which I've built my marriage is imaginary. That's the kind of conversation that's really worth continuing.
Transitioning from DANDER TURNED UP TO 11 to old favorites like the maturity harrumph is pretty ballsy at this stage. You've got to have a lot of confidence in the hand you've been dealt to go that route. The audience is on pins and needles.

I'm going to have to get a man-sized tweezer made.
Honestly, I thought the metahumor Godwin reference was really going to hurt your standing, but I'm glad to see you right back in the fray with a pithy snap that only your Babelfish English could conjure so effectively.

She allows you to believe you're an equal partner. It's a wise thing to do, due to the limitations on our personalities that our testosterone-driven egos impose on us.

Edit: It's just like when she asks you, "Does this dress make me look fat?" But in the same direction. :)
Rimbo, you dog you. I knew you still had some more emasculated male feminist bait in your bag somewhere. Give em hell!

Still a dead heat, although some of the usual suspects have elected not to participate thus far. It's anybody's game.

[Dirt]

Transitioning from DANDER TURNED UP TO 11 to old favorites like the maturity harrumph is pretty ballsy at this stage. You've got to have a lot of confidence in the hand you've been dealt to go that route. The audience is on pins and needles.


Honestly, I thought the metahumor Godwin reference was really going to hurt your standing, but I'm glad to see you right back in the fray with a pithy snap that only your Babelfish English could conjure so effectively.


Rimbo, you dog you. I knew you still had some more emasculated male feminist bait in your bag somewhere. Give em hell!

Still a dead heat, although some of the usual suspects have elected not to participate thus far. It's anybody's game.
This is the poor man's version of The Narrator.

[Rimbo]

Minus points for me for saying, "same direction" when I meant "opposite direction." I think you have to give a lot of credit to madkevin for getting me to bite on this and derailing the thread in the first place (http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1209474&postcount=68).


Anyway, if there's room left for on-topic discussion, Huffington, I think, covers precisely why people don't like Hillary Clinton.* It's not just the cynical way her campaign's being run; it's that people recognize her cynicism for what it is. Put another way, what people like about Obama and Ron Paul (two candidates who otherwise couldn't be more different) is what they don't like about Hillary and Giuliani. It has to do with people believing that Giuliani and Hillary are always bullshitting them, and believing that Obama and Paul are not. Note that I say "believing," because we can't really tell whether any of them are genuine or not from here in the cheap seats; it's just that from here, it looks like these two are being honest, and the other two are not.

And I think the bulk of this reaction comes from the dishonesty that both sides have found so distasteful from the past 16 years' worth of presidents. GHWB was incompetent with local politics, but he never seemed to be sneaky, despite his CIA background. And no matter what you thought of Reagan or Carter, you disliked them for what they stood for or how they implemented it, and not what they pretended to stand for.


*this sentence probably needs about 3 more comma-separated phrases

[Lizard_King]

This is the poor man's version of The Narrator.
Oh, because the sensible thing to do would be to address your awesome line of reasoning in its own moronic reality, right? I've tried that before, and all I get is you cranking up your fire hose of stupid.

[Anaxagoras]

This is the poor man's version of The Narrator.

Actually, it's pretty damn funny.

[Dirt]

Oh, because the sensible thing to do would be to address your awesome line of reasoning in its own moronic reality, right? I've tried that before, and all I get is you cranking up your fire hose of stupid.
Or you can do what everyone else does and provide self-important commentary.

Actually, it's pretty damn funny.
I have to agree. But it lacks The Narrator's subtlety. I guess there can only be 1 The Narrator.

[Lizard_King]

And no matter what you thought of Reagan or Carter, you disliked them for what they stood for or how they implemented it, and not what they pretended to stand for.
Let me get this straight: you want to re rail the thread and you're kicking it off with *that*? Holy shit.

[Rimbo]

Let me get this straight: you want to re rail the thread and you're kicking it off with *that*? Holy shit.

Wait, you think Carter or Reagan was dishonest about their intentions?

[Lizard_King]

Or you can do what everyone else does and provide self-important commentary.
Right, I already said those were the two options. I'm asking why you would think visiting planet Dirt is the better, less masturbatory option. I have to imagine even you are aware on some level why that would be worse.

I have to agree. But it lacks The Narrator's subtlety. I guess there can only be 1 The Narrator.
You wouldn't know subtlety if it punched you in the mouth.

[Lizard_King]

Wait, you think Carter or Reagan was dishonest about their intentions?
Nice try, punk. I saw your stealth edit.

[Dirt]

Right, I already said those were the two options. I'm asking why you would think visiting planet Dirt is the better, less masturbatory option. I have to imagine even you are aware on some level why that would be worse.

You wouldn't know subtlety if it punched you in the mouth.
Now I really need The Narrator. Unless, of course, you'd like to write commentary for yourself on how you performed this round?

[Rimbo]

Nice try, punk. I saw your stealth edit.

Pardon me; my addled brain, not being the quality of yours, is not quite remembering the edit in question. Would you kindly remind me, please?

[BlueJackalope]

Now I really need The Narrator. Unless, of course, you'd like to write commentary for yourself on how you performed this round?

I'd give him an 8. He'd of gotten a higher score, but was brought down by the quality of the material he had to work with.

He was able to frame the bowling-shoe ugly scrum of dirt, madkevin and Rimbo attempting to out-stupid each other to claim the title of most aggrieved, like three greased up catholic priests trying to pull an altar boy off a flag pole, in entertaining, yet familar terms.

It was more than you deserved, like Howard Cosell calling a Strat-o-matic superbowl.

[Lizard_King]

Pardon me; my addled brain, not being the quality of yours, is not quite remembering the edit in question. Would you kindly remind me, please?
Sure. This:
I flat out admit I was in full-on counter-troll asshole mode.

became this:


Let me get this straight: you want to re rail the thread and you're kicking it off with *that*? Holy shit.

Wait, you think Carter or Reagan was dishonest about their intentions?

Does that help?

[Rimbo]

Oh, because the sensible thing to do would be to address your awesome line of reasoning in its own moronic reality, right? I've tried that before, and all I get is you cranking up your fire hose of stupid.

I flat out admit I was in full-on counter-troll asshole mode.

[madkevin]

Edit: It's just like when she asks you, "Does this dress make me look fat?" But in the opposite direction. :)

My wife has literally never asked me this in any context ever at any point in our relationship. So I think the problem here is that you seem to have accidentally married Wilma Flintstone.

[Rimbo]

Sure. This:


became this:


Does that help?

That was actually two posts. I deleted the first one because it was in response to a completely different comment. I have restored the post you cherish so much, so that you can keep a copy under your bed for those nights when you're feeling lonely. ;)

[Rimbo]

My wife has literally never asked me this in any context ever at any point in our relationship. So I think the problem here is that you seem to have accidentally married Wilma Flintstone.

Well, how nice of her!

[Lizard_King]

My wife has literally never asked me this in any context ever at any point in our relationship. So I think the problem here is that you seem to have accidentally married Wilma Flintstone.
The winner by unanimous decision. When your coach told you to keep your eye on the ball, he had this kind of thing in mind. Frankly, I'm not surprised. Stupid and trolling will be crushed by stupid and sincere, every time.

That was actually two posts. I deleted the first one because it was in response to a completely different comment. I have restored the post you cherish so much, so that you can keep a copy under your bed for those nights when you're feeling lonely. ;)
Hey, you asked.

[Rimbo]

Hey, you asked.

True that. Actually, I appreciate you clearing it up for me, because I really had forgotten I'd posted it, so I shouldn't have been such an ass to you about it. And frankly, shouldn't have been an ass in general. Probably shouldn't have bitten on madkevin's troll in the first place... But I confess it was fun... and I do so LOOOOOOOVE the attention, even the negative attention...

I'm a sad, sad human being.

But I will end this post with a smile:

http://www.hottestgirlsofcheerleading.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/texaschaps.jpg

[Jason McCullough]

....this particular woman is a cackling shrew....

Can't be too feminine - cry, dress attractively, or show emtion - shows she's weak. Can't be masculine - aggressive, conservatively dressed, speak without emotion - makes her cackling shrew. Best get back in the kitchen, I guess.

[biclops]

This whole thing is awesome because I've met madkevin's wife and she's a total ballbreaker. It's like a wacky life-long edit of Saving Silverman.

Kev, I propose a healthy regiment of starvation and emotional torture. That ought to take some of the venom out of her bite. He that knows better how to tame a shrew, now let him speak; 'tis charity to show.

[Rimbo]

Can't be too feminine - cry, dress attractively, or show emtion - shows she's weak. Can't be masculine - aggressive, conservatively dressed, speak without emotion - makes her cackling shrew. Best get back in the kitchen, I guess.

Why did you make this comment in response to my quote? This is not merely one but FOUR non-sequiturs. I'm not criticizing her for being masculine nor feminine. Being a cackling shrew has nothing to do with her being masculine. And as for your "kitchen" comment, I can think of plenty of women not named Hillary who'd make great presidents, who aren't cackling shrews -- such as Ann Richards. One, Two, Three, Four.

Instead of trying to be feminine by crying, dressing attractively and showing emotion, or trying to be masculine by being aggressive, conservatively dressed or speaking without emotion, she could try just being herself. I don't think Hillary even knows what that looks like.

[Jason McCullough]

Name a feminine-acting women in the public sphere who is called a "cackling shrew." I'm not sure they exist.

On Ann Richards not being a shrew, while I'm sure from the grave she appreciates you exempting her, did you live in Texas when she was running for Governor? That was one of the mildest things said about her. People apply it to Ann Coulter too

Instead of trying to be feminine by crying, dressing attractively and showing emotion, or trying to be masculine by being aggressive, conservatively dressed or speaking without emotion, she could try just being herself.

Eliminating feminine and masculine as you'd prefer, you get androgynous. She gets called that too (http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+androgynous&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). Women basically can't simultaneously have power and get by our public gender expectations. It doesn't strike me as a total coincidence that Elizabeth Dole, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Barbara Boxer, and Olympia Shrew get called "shrew". Seriously, type any of those names + shrew into Google and watch what pops out.

Those are just the first names I could could come up with. It's a term used in the public sphere across the political spectrum to criticize a powerful woman you don't like for existing, not for policy or opinion reasons.

[Lum]

It doesn't strike me as a total coincidence that Elizabeth Dole, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Barbara Boxer, and Olympia Shrew get called "shrew". Seriously, type any of those names + shrew into Google and watch what pops out

Yes, Jason, if I type "Olympia Shrew" into Google, I probably will get some results involving shrews.

Results 1 - 10 of about 97 for "Kay Bailey Hutchison" +shrew. Statistically insignificant. Hell, I get 24 for "Scott Jennings" +shrew.

111 for Olympia Snowe. 340 for Elizabeth Dole.

686 for Barbara Boxer. 2400 for Nancy Pelosi. 10,100 for Hillary Clinton.

Clearly, only right wingers follow Shakespeare. As opposed to:

Results 1 - 10 of about 9,220 for "Kay Bailey Hutchison" +bitch.

[McGraw McGraw]

I believe that the only conclusion we can draw from this particular thread is that the english language is in need of a neutral gender derogatory term. Something like smegma snuffler, maybe?

[Jason McCullough]

Typo on Olympia. :) I wasn't publishing a peer-reviewed paper, so what?

I only think it's slightly better on the left, really.

[Rogen]

I'm pretty sure you, as a voter, embody much (if far from all) that I hate about American politics. So that probably sums up what kind of "eyes" you need to vote for Hillary.

This from a person who thinks you're supposed to vote for the person who will win anyway, and if you don't then your vote was "irrelevant" and you shouldn't have bothered.

You are willing to accept and then repeat this kind of extremely harmful (and transparently irrational) casuistry, if only the talking heads on TV will say it enough times, followed by other TV heads nodding with a straight face.

You are easily fooled and easily distracted and easily controlled. You are, in short, the reason we have so much "manufactured consent" and political theater in America. You are the ultimate consumer voter.

And if that's not the case, then tell me what kind of eyes you are using to see Hillary looking like she's worth voting for.

No snarky one liners, no deflecting the issue, no childish insults. Present your case. If you can't, then please evaluate it on your own and see if you need to come up with some new opinions.

One downside of living in a free society with participatory politics is that you as a citizen do have responsibility to think. Not something you hear too often on TV, but there's a good reason for that.

[Lum]

This from a person who thinks you're supposed to vote for the person who will win anyway, and if you don't then your vote was "irrelevant" and you shouldn't have bothered.

You are willing to accept and then repeat this kind of extremely harmful (and transparently irrational) casuistry, if only the talking heads on TV will say it enough times, followed by other TV heads nodding with a straight face.

Total voters for Ralph Nader in Florida in 2000: 97,421
Margin of victory/defeat for Bush/Gore in Florida, depending on recount rules used: +/- 400.

[Rimbo]

On Ann Richards not being a shrew, while I'm sure from the grave she appreciates you exempting her, did you live in Texas when she was running for Governor?

Yes, and I voted for her then, too.

Eliminating feminine and masculine as you'd prefer, you get androgynous.

Why would I prefer that?

I don't want her acting like a woman. I don't want her acting like a man. I don't want her acting like something in-between. I don't want her acting like anything. The reason no facade pleases me is because it's the facade itself I object to.

Those are just the first names I could could come up with. It's a term used in the public sphere across the political spectrum to criticize a powerful woman you don't like for existing, not for policy or opinion reasons.

Fine. She's not a cackling shrew. She's a cackling prostitute. Because that's what you call a sellout, regardless of gender.

[Lizard_King]

This from a person who thinks you're supposed to vote for the person who will win anyway, and if you don't then your vote was "irrelevant" and you shouldn't have bothered.
Ron Paul's relevance isn't his problem. Neither is yours.

You are willing to accept and then repeat this kind of extremely harmful (and transparently irrational) casuistry, if only the talking heads on TV will say it enough times, followed by other TV heads nodding with a straight face.

You are easily fooled and easily distracted and easily controlled. You are, in short, the reason we have so much "manufactured consent" and political theater in America. You are the ultimate consumer voter.
I came to my decision from the depths of radical libertarianism in my college years, followed by exploring the consequences of votes made in those times in my service in the Marine Corps. It's not that I don't understand where you are coming from, it's that I don't envy you the process of growing up you need to undergo before you can reconcile the Randness you will never escape with the realities of society and human nature.

And if that's not the case, then tell me what kind of eyes you are using to see Hillary looking like she's worth voting for.
Because I have no problem with most of her policies, and I don't see her character as menacing or evil. I can't help you with either part of that as it is mostly subjective. I have a great deal of admiration for her, and I understand the moral compromises she made for her place in life. I can connect the dots between that and the pre first lady Hillary, and I still think the person there is plenty worthwhile. Voting for a Republican who does not renounce the direction his party is headed is not an option, and I'm pleased to find that unlike the last election it is easy to make peace with the Democratic options most likely to make it.

No snarky one liners, no deflecting the issue, no childish insults. Present your case. If you can't, then please evaluate it on your own and see if you need to come up with some new opinions.
I don't care if you vote for Hillary. I don't care if you vote for Paul. The only thing I'm more done with than changing other people's minds is taking shit from true believers. There are plenty of people I've disagreed with who have convinced me of some aspect of some point of view of theirs, but I know where you are coming from. I've spoken your language. I've outgrown it, and now all I have left is the gag reflex for it occasionally muffled by the outbursts of the usual gang of idiots who oppose it for all of the wrong reasons.

One downside of living in a free society with participatory politics is that you as a citizen do have responsibility to think. Not something you hear too often on TV, but there's a good reason for that.
Seriously, do you think about this shit before you type it? Do you realize the irony of delivering these secular sermons as often as you do, coupled with the artificial wisdom of any pundit on TV, books, internet, etc? You hear shit like that all of the time. Every day. People don't think. The masses are stupid. The sheeple bla bla bla. What you really object to is that your arguments are insufficiently persuasive to make them think as you do, and yet at the same time you revel in your niche status because that is, after all, the essence of modern libertarianism as manifested in Ron Paul. You don't really expect America to become a libertarian paradise, ever, but you do appreciate the value of an epistemology that allows you to blame others for everything that's wrong (while telling them that the problem is not taking responsibility for themselves).

And I don't think you've thought it through to that level, either. Not because you're stupid (probably), but because it sucks. But you are responsible for the leaders you follow. Ron Paul isn't a candidate. He's a cult.

So now I'll be a bandwagon jumper for agreeing with a bunch of liberals who never had to try it to know that it's broken. Boo fucking hoo. I'm curious if you're of the young, college age variety, or the old, broken kind. I expect it's the former, and that means there is hope. Not right now, more than likely, but hey. Good luck with that.

[Anders Hallin]

Aside from expert opinions (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7153584.stm) or peer-reviewed research (http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/news/2006/01/30/29236.shtml) that demonstrates that there is a perfectly natural difference to how humor relates to women vs. men, it's enough to say that this particular woman is a cackling shrew, and that most women are not.
Dude, you just quoted the "reactions to uni-cycling are a proper determinant for biological make-up" research. I think the description says more than any scorn I can heap on it.
As for the second, where's the "natural part" of men only liking to be boosted, humour-wise, rather than having a woman who is threatening by having a sense of humour on her own.

She's "Centrist" in the same way that Ron Paul is a Socialist. She is the champion of the Nanny State, the staunchest proponent strong central government even to the point of ignoring the Constitutional limitations of office, with a willingness to do anything to get elected. In short, she is George W. Bush, but instead of hiding her big-government anti-freedom aspirations behind pro-freedom small-government rhetoric, she actually wrote a fucking book on it (http://www.amazon.com/Takes-Village-Hillary-Rodham-Clinton/dp/0684825457).
Uh. And most people don't consider Bush to be a leftist. Except for right-wingers desperately trying to distance themselves from that trainwreck. Of course, Hillary isn't Bush. For one, she seems competent.

[ravenight]

Watching her speech today, I'm still not sure what I think about Hillary. She definitely has chameleon qualities (about some things, though I think she has some core beliefs that are solid and in the right direction), but her voting record (or at least, what I've heard of it - I haven't made a study) implies to me that she actually practices what she's currently preaching by and large. I'd prefer someone who tries to go beyond what people say they want and get at what they actually want, but if Hillary actually intends to accomplish the stuff she's talking about in that speech, then maybe all we need Obama for is motivational speeches when she starts to slip back into horse-trading.

I have a hard time shaking the idea that she's all facade, though. The choking up thing was definitely staged, but was it a staged display of genuine emotion, or a calculated job of acting? The speech was a clear co-opting of some of the most stinging points that Edwards and Obama are raising, but was it genuine shift in priorities to focus her campaign and then presidency on those things, or just lip service to neutralize their advantage a la Bush 2000? The ifs worry me.

[bago]

Has there been a resounding degree of mockery for someone fucking up lose and loose in this thread yet? If not, I would like to start the berating now.

[Hugin]

Has there been a resounding degree of mockery for someone fucking up lose and loose in this thread yet? If not, I would like to start the berating now.

Has there been mockery for people who ask questions that would easily be answered if they read the thread they were snarking in?

Also, as an experiment, how about folks try being critical of Hillary for 24 hours without using the words cunt, whore, shrew, harpy, or bitch?

[Brian Rucker]

Finely!

[ravenight]

Has there been mockery for people who ask questions that would easily be answered if they read the thread they were snarking in?

Also, as an experiment, how about folks try being critical of Hillary for 24 hours without using the words cunt, whore, shrew, harpy, or bitch?

What about chameleon?

[extarbags]

Also, as an experiment, how about folks try being critical of Hillary for 24 hours without using the words cunt, whore, shrew, harpy, or bitch?

Maybe she could try campaigning for 24 hours without being any of those.

[Njal]

Maybe she could try campaigning for 24 hours without being any of those.

Grow up.

[Qenan]

Most of the terms in play (e.g., "shrew") don't have much meaning beyond "I don't like her".

[Derek Meister]

I prefer to label her as "everything that's wrong about modern politics".

[Dirt]

Maybe she could try campaigning for 24 hours without being any of those.
Taking your coffee without milk or sugar today?

[extarbags]

Grow up.

Sorry, I guess profanity is pretty offensive. I should probably take an example from her and do something more palatable, like cynically manipulate the politics of the most powerful nation on Earth for the greater glory of my bloated ego.

[Stroker Ace]

You're really not giving as a clue about your anti-Hillary grudges, bags. We get it, you don't like her. Now please rationally explain why or stop posting about it quite so much.

[extarbags]

I've explained it like a thousand times. Basically, her entire political career is based on furthering itself. She latches on to any issue that she thinks might pick up some votes in her next election, and as a result, she's supported a whole heap of things that are pretty abhorrent: the war in Iraq, the crusade against media violence, and faith-based initiatives, to name just a few.

[Nick Walter]

I've explained it like a thousand times. Basically, her entire political career is based on furthering itself. She latches on to any issue that she thinks might pick up some votes in her next election, and as a result, she's supported a whole heap of things that are pretty abhorrent: the war in Iraq, the crusade against media violence, and faith-based initiatives, to name just a few.

. . . as opposed to all the other politicans who are in it just to get a little glow from their halos.

Regardless of the correctness of that assertion (and I'm dubious) it still doesn't explain your rather irrational and disproportionate seeming disdain for Ms Clinton that you lately express at every opportunity. Don't demean yourself extar, don't become her Huffman.

[extarbags]

. . . as opposed to all the other politicans who are in it just to get a little glow from their halos.

Look, I'm not naive, but there are politicians who aren't horrible. Two of them are running against Hillary Clinton right now.

Regardless of the correctness of that assertion (and I'm dubious) it still doesn't explain your rather irrational and disproportionate seeming disdain for Ms Clinton that you lately express at every opportunity. Don't demean yourself extar, don't become her Huffman.

Well I don't think it's either irrational or disproportionate, because I think the possibility of her getting the nomination is a seriously disturbing scenario, but I'll mention that this "every opportunity" is only because she's running in an election a week right now, so of course it's going to come up more often. I recognize that I'm extra surly about it today; I think you can guess why that might be.

[Andrew Mayer]

I have a hard time shaking the idea that she's all facade, though. The choking up thing was definitely staged, but was it a staged display of genuine emotion, or a calculated job of acting? The speech was a clear co-opting of some of the most stinging points that Edwards and Obama are raising, but was it genuine shift in priorities to focus her campaign and then presidency on those things, or just lip service to neutralize their advantage a la Bush 2000? The ifs worry me.

No offense, but this seems like a perfect example of the Republican slime strategy. Throw out false stories constantly, knowing that they'll be shot down, but will also leave a residual impression.

I'm not arguing that they have no relation to the real person, only that it's a perversion of the persona.

[Dirt]

Who needs Republicans when Democrats are already so good at destroying itself? We need to unite, not divide.

[ravenight]

No offense, but this seems like a perfect example of the Republican slime strategy. Throw out false stories constantly, knowing that they'll be shot down, but will also leave a residual impression.

What false stories? I said she co-opted the popular positions of her opponents and made an effort to indicate that she is human. Then I asked whether she did those things honestly because she wants to transform herself into the best president, or dishonestly because she wants to get the most votes.

[Jason McCullough]

Politicians who don't pander and stick to their principles have a name: losers. It's like criticizing an English major for not writing in a straightforward and accessible manner; you don't get ahead in that career by doing that.

[extarbags]

In the words of Shelly the machine Levine: "That's defeatist, fuck it."

[NoWayJose]

In the words of Mad Max, "You wanna get out of here, you talk to me."