Silence Is Assent: What the Democratic Party Apparently Thinks of Women

Posted February 15, 2008 | 10:52 AM (EST)




Who could have predicted how much a presidential race in the 21st Century would damage women's progress? When Betty Friedan and I taught classes together in the mid 1990s, she'd moved beyond The Feminine Mystique to what she called "the second stage," a time when men and women would reconcile their differences so all might benefit.

Were she alive today, she'd be shocked and furious at the deplorable way in which Hillary Clinton's campaign is being used by the media as an excuse to slap women back into what my very much "steamed" 83-year-old mother-in-law, Connie, described yesterday as "our supposed place." Were Betty around now, she'd be shouting before even entering my car, asking me why my generation wasn't doing more. Why we're allowing this to happen?

Part of the problem is that Hillary is running against a very popular Barack Obama. To stand up against media demeaning of his opponent takes a level of sportsmanship by his supporters we're willing to teach our children in soccer and baseball but apparently unwilling to expect of ourselves. "I'm for Barack Obama, so I must be OK with despicable attacks on Hillary" is how too many people think. These, no doubt, are the same people who will expect a rush to Barack's side by Hillary supporters should he win the nomination. They'll be saying, "Put it behind us and let's move on. Get over it."

Not so fast. During a recent radio interview I said that were Barack to win the nomination, he'd have my vote. But with each day the Democratic Party is losing its appeal. And I'm far from the only one thinking this way. Where are senior Democrats calling for civility at least from their own members? How about a letter from them to the corporate media culprits? Where is Howard Dean? Why didn't Ted Kennedy bother to give a noticeable nod to women and their struggle to see one of their own become president before his ecstatic leap into the Obama camp? Wouldn't he have acted differently if he'd thrown his support the other way? Why does it take people outside the party and even opposed to Clinton to decry insults to her body, her face, and her every move?

I'd like to know, too, if Barack Obama really stands for change, why this Democratic race is more of the same in terms of demeaning women so men might advance. There are times when silence is assent -- and this is one of them. I'm not suggesting he come to Hillary's aid. I'm suggesting he comport himself as the agent of change he so confidently claims to be.

Barack isn't to blame for the nastiness. But he's hardly denounced it. Many of his supporters revel in it. I've written about political courage, most recently in the Harvard Business Review. And this isn't it.

Corporate owned media flinging vile attacks at Senator Clinton should elicit from Senator Obama as much disdain as corporate lobbyists do. But he gives the former a pass at great expense to women -- those who notice and those who haven't yet.

Each rung of the ladder onerously constructed and climbed by women in the past and present is being damaged by the current Democratic presidential race. I knew things weren't perfect -- that we weren't in any sense solidly in the second stage. I just didn't think vile media attacks on Hillary that resonate for all women would go largely unchallenged by the Democratic Party -- that people supposedly on the side of equal regard for all would be, by their silence, little better than those on the attack.

If a vote for the Democratic Party means condoning incivility toward women and giving the most vile in the media and ones who take their lead from them free, unchallenged reign, then the Democratic Party is a shadow of its former self -- and may indeed be deservedly so in numbers before the vicious game they've condoned is over.

Feb. 16 P. S. This blog is not about who you plan to vote for but rather about the inexcusable silence of the Democratic Party in the face of media commentators so desperate to pull our attention away from other channels that they debase themselves, one of the Democratic Party's leading candidates and the election process at the behest of their corporate owners. Hillary Clinton is the current target. You watch. They'll be after Barack Obama in vile ways if it suits their needs and we continue to deny their intentions. They have to fill 24 hours and compete with countless channels. This blog is about silence being a form of assent. It is opinion -- the great thing about blogs. Take it or leave it. But it is not about your vote -- as that is your business and your right.

Dr. Reardon blogs at bardscove.com

Also new site The Thin Pink Line

Comments for this post are now closed


 

Comments
965
Pending Comments
0

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

Hint sample
View Comments:
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next › Last » (13 pages total)

is it just me or is it a little nauseating when Clinton fans play the victim card. sure there are a few loud and despicable wingnuts saying ignorant things about both candidates, but the "popular" candidate here is a dark-skinned man with a muslim name... it's a truly astounding testament to his leadership talents that he's even in the running. Let alone winning. He is winning on merit. And nobody's ever going to buy the idea that Clinton is the outsider here. it's an insult to obama and the millions of americans who support him.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:35 AM on 02/21/2008

The Problem is the Corporatist MSM control of virtually all broadcast media.

Kucinich, gravel didn't even get to debate, while Hillary and Obama were deemed Safe by the War Profiteers to continue. The MSM is not picking on Hillary because she is a woman, they are picking on here because it they can spin it into an exciting wrestling match.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 PM on 02/18/2008

What utter piffle. The press goes after Hillary because she's " Hillary ". They print " vile " accounts of her connections to lobbyists because she has connections with lobbyists that are vile. Stop making this a war against the female candidate. That Hillary Clinton is divisive and disingenuous has zip to do with her gender. Does anyone really believe that say Madelein Albright or Ann Richards would receive the type of pillorying that Hillary does ? Of course they wouldn't. To vote for or be in favour of a candidate purely because of their gender or race is destructive in itself. Had Hillary won the nomination, she would have been in for a great deal more scrutiny pertaining to her past dealings and and voting record which would have in any event precluded her election victory. Get over it already. We're not talking about Margaret Thatcher. Indira Gandhi or Golda Mair here...we're talking about a politician bereft of any deep principle except the covetous desire to be president. If she had the ideology of Adolf Hitler, people like you would still whine about those who refuse to vote for her, because they are casting their vote against the woman candidate - Give us a break.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:50 PM on 02/18/2008

Your easy dismissal of a well written article as piffle paints you in dark colors much uglier then pink. Regardless why a new correspondent supports of challenges Senator Clinton, he or she has no justifiable reason to address Cosmopolitan fashion issues as though style of dress has anything to do with political discourse. If Barack"s choice of tie were discussed as often as Hillary"s choice of clothing, you"d discontinue giving the reporter your respect as a journalist. Open your self to the reality that sexism and misogyny are prevalent in our society to such a degree that minor issuances of sexism are dismissed non-existent.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:05 AM on 02/20/2008


My opinion of HRC (Hillary) might depend on
my opinions on what she would give the Office of the Presidency. I have, in fact, noticed her
gender. In fact, she has not let me forget it.

My opinion of O (Barack Obama) might depend on
what I believe he would bring to the Office
of the Presidency. Failure to support him does
not mean I support slavery (by race).

My first choice was John Edwards.(I am neither
a southernor nor a Baptist. In fact, I was
working for civil rights and social justice in Mississippi in 1965.) He has emailed me on behalf of the DCCC (Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) to advocate for a stronger Democratic majority in the House of
Representatives. I do not agree with every House member but I remain a loyal
DCCC member. Incidentally, our excellent
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
(with whom I often disagree) is not male.
Perhaps you noticed.

Credoes for Speaker Nancy Pelosi!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:20 AM on 02/18/2008

I couldn't agree with you more. I first soured on Obama during the New Hampshire debate when he and Edwards teamed up on Clinton. Seemed quite calculated to me. Then after a recent primary win, he interrupts her speech with his and lets his people say that it wasn't intentional. Isn't this the guy who says he's a new kind of politician and won't engage in this kind of thing? Now his campaign has released flyers that misrepresent Clinton's positions (one of the quotes, which they pulled from a newspaper had already been discredited). Of course, there's nothing new about this, but Obama, who many people seem to think is the second coming of JFK, doesn't seem to get nailed for it. Meanwhile, Clinton is getting nailed for every thing.
I have been disenchanted with the Democrats on the Presidential front for many years. I only got excited this year because I absolutely believe it is important to get a woman in the Presidency and Clinton, who is my Senator, has shown herself to be unbelievable smart with a great understanding of the issues and an amazing ability to articulate them.
I am outraged by her treatment and by the Democrats acceptance of it. So I'll give them the same consideration in November that they've given Clinton during the primary season. In fact, I'll take a page from Obama's book, and when it comes to voting for President, I'll just vote present.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:19 PM on 02/24/2008

For all the talk about "Glass Ceilings" etc. one thing is very,very clear...

If Obama wins then women will NEVER live this one down...

Because they couldn't even elect one of their own and there are MORE women voters then men these days!!!




































favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:19 AM on 02/18/2008

This is fairly stupid trolling. Women are not running for the nomination, Hillary is. And many of us support someone else who happens not to be female. The candidates are not anyones' "own." That kind of divisive thinking got us into this mess. I have never voted for or against a candidate because of race or gender, and I resent the assumption that I would as much as I reject the claim that I should.

There are some strong female candidates at the edge of the public spotlight. They are not Hillary Clinton and not the tools of corporate fascism. I look forward to supporting them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:38 AM on 02/20/2008

Hillary is not one of their own. Just cause she has a vagina doesn't automatically make her a club member. Hillary is a user and feminists are not users. Unfortunately to many people identify with the fact that she looks the part, but a little digging shows just how much looks can be deceiving. She is the prototypical wolf in sheep's clothing.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:49 AM on 02/18/2008

Explain. From what I understand she has a strong background of policy advocating for matter and policies of concern to women. State your case.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:06 PM on 02/18/2008

Trailrunner9

Trying to get PNL to "explain" is akin to getting blood from the proverbial stone or better yet, poking the hornet's nest but you did however, get a valid point across.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:53 PM on 02/20/2008

Which "despicable attacks" against women are you referring to? The absence of any specifics in your article is conspicuous.

Part of the problem... is that Hillary Clinton is a deeply flawed politician. Her Iraq war vote and her Iran vote are good examples of Clintonian triangulation that subverts principle for short-term political gain. Now she reaps what she has sown. People don't dislike her (or attack her policies or campaign) because of her gender, but because of her actions.

The one setting back the cause of feminism is... you. To equate disapproval of Hillary with disapproval of women in general is not only baseless, it promotes the notion that Hillary is a woman first and a presidential candidate second. This type of identity politics is distasteful, ineffective, and out-moded. Take Obama as a counter-example; he has run a post-racial campaign. He is a candidate for president who happens to be black, and has not made race the central rationalle of his candidacy, and people have responded accordingly, more or less. Tellingly, this tack was so foreign to Bill Clinton that he couln't help but try to remind everyone that Obama was "the black canidate", just as Hillary constantly re-casts herself as "the woman candidate". In the old game of identity politics, "the white woman candidate" beats "the black man candidate". Unfortunately for Hillary, but fortunately for our country, the candidate with a better message (who happens to be black) beats the candidate who is a woman first and an equivocator second.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:42 AM on 02/18/2008

The reason that Obama has not cried out in outrage at the sexist comments levied against Clinton and every other female in the same breath is 1) Obama and other high ranking Democrat males have ordered Obama's supporter to attack Clinton using the most vile and sexist language 2) Obama as a leader is too weak and too much of a coward to speak out against these attacks 3) Obama's followers are not following Obama which means means Obama is not a leader of his own "followers" who on their own are attacking Clinton and every other female with sexist language and smear.

So which is it?????

Either Obama has order these sexist attacks or Obama is a coward and can't stand up to the sexist attacks or Obama's followers not looking to Obama for leadership and are doing their own thing.

The fact that these sexist attacks from Obama's supporters have gone on for months and months and Obama has never spoken publically saying that verbal assualts of women is not okeh, says what about Obama's character?????

Or lack of character....

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 01:37 AM on 02/18/2008

What is so hard about believing that people just don't want to vote for a warmonger?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:37 AM on 02/18/2008

Obama is wrong to say that all of Hillary's supporters will vote for him. This undemocratic primary with biased MSM journalists, pundits and bloggers, spewing hate and right wing talking points have turned my family off. The DNC, by staying silent, perpetuated, ennabled and encouraged this mean and degrading behavior. I do not recognize my party anymore.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:01 PM on 02/17/2008

Most who would vote for Hillary considering her lies, distortions, throwing the sexist card to justify losing a debate, as well as letting her husband try and frame Obama as "the black candidate" should have no problem voting for the "other" candidate. She gets her money from Federal Lobbyists and PACs while he gets all his money from individual voters.

Clinton supporters obviously don't have any strong principles considering they're voting for her. It's more often than not about voting on gender preferences, or name recognition. Why wouldn't they vote for Obama? Perhaps they don't like the way he refuses to lie about other candidates' records? Perhaps they don't like that fact he refuses to be "bought" by lobbyists and PACs?

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 11:03 PM on 02/17/2008

I"m not backing Hilary Clinton. No amount of cajoling, harassing or browbeating by any of her surrogates or supporters (including my girlfriend) will make me change my mind. I suspect those of you that support Hillary Clinton feel the same way. I voted for Obama for a number of reason- its likely none of these reasons will resonate with the most Clinton supporters.

I certainly do not believe Hillary is a racist. Similarly, I find the claim that Obama is a misogynist or somehow complicit in sexist behavior to to be highly dubious. Neither one of these candidates life stories, political rhetoric, education or legislative record provides evidence to support any of these claims.

What I have discovered is that there is an abundance of petulant, dismissive, downright angry individuals on both sides who will excoriate anyone whose views don"t coincide with their own. The self righteousness from both sides " how dare I or anyone else have the temerity to view the world through their own experience, needs or aspirations. What starts as a simple discussion becomes a shouting match where participants catalogue various injustices and inequities, fling unsubstantiated accusations denigrating the character of people they have never met and then offer high"fives for a "well executed" political smack-down.

Invariably, some rabid Obama/Clinton supporter offers the equivalent of either I win or I am leaving and btw I'm taking my marbles with me - e.g. "I will be voting for McCain in November if Obama/Clinton doesn"t win." Really? And you"re posting here, home to the most strident supporters of Democratic/Progressive values? T I prefer Obama, but I"ll vote for Clinton if she"s the nominee " gladly.

Go ahead and catalogue all the acts of injustice by each campaign, their surrogates and of course the media. There will be enough outrage for all of us to wallow in well past the general election when John McCain is offering his first state of the Union address.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 PM on 02/17/2008

If you look at Hillary's record on Iraq, Iran, cluster bombs, engaging in diplomacy with countries we disagree with; her flip-flopping on torture you might come to the same conclusion: Hillary is NOT much different then the neo-cons in her foreign policy.

Considering that our foreign policies are crippling this country in resources, our world-standing, etc.. she is not likely to be any different the John McCain.

Her credibility is zero at this point. She will lie and say just about anything to get elected. John McCain will at least tell the truth about 75% of the time.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 10:57 PM on 02/17/2008

Thank you! Thank you! I feel the same way. I feel empty and I am so ashamed of the democratic party and my country. I have been a loyal democrat my entire life thinking I was fighting for equality just to find that they do not believe in equality obviously.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:34 PM on 02/17/2008

I wrote my previous post before reading other comments. For the record, I do not hate Hillary. I do not feel she is best person for the job, because of what I see as dirty and divisive tactics from her campaign. People here are equating being for the opposition as hating the other candidate, that's not so. I helped put her husband in office, twice. Now I have lost respect for them both because of their actions, still I wish them nothing but the best. Hillary seems to believe that this nomination was owed her and she somehow had a right to it. Her campaign changes tactics almost daily. What should we believe? Because of this primary season, I do feel optimistic that our country is ready, and will elect a woman in the near future. I look forward to seeing that day. Today, Barack Obama is the better candidate.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 07:03 PM on 02/17/2008

I think that you need to look at Hillary and Bill's behavior to understand the hatred for her.

You're insinuating that people are picking on her because she's a woman. It is clear to me that she has turned off SO MANY people because of her and her husband's behavior.

Perhaps some of the specific comments levied against Hillary comes close to being inappropriate, but in the context of Bill and Hill's behavior (lies, distortions, injecting sexism when she loses her first debate, trying to brand Obama "the black candidate" in South Carolina, etc...) the bitterness directed at the Clintons is completely justified.

When people get into the dirt themselves using every dishonest, underhanded tactic that would make Karl Rove himself gasp then it becomes nothing, but a convenient "crying wolf" tactic itself to suggest that everyone's response to her and Bill's behavior is propelled by a deep seated hatred for her sex rather than a disgusting reaction towards the behavior she exhibits.

I can't stand George W. Bush. I've called him a LOT of names and have insulted his intelligence, his credibility, his honor, etc.. Now he could conveniently suggest that I'm a bigot (in the way you have) i.e. he could suggest that I must hate Texans, or that I hate evangelists, or that I hate white males.

Some of my remarks towards George W. would probably offend some evangelists, Texans, etc.., but I have no hatred for these people. I hate George W. for his behavior first and foremost.

I love Jimmy Carter and he's an evangelist.

Just because Bill got called out on his race baiting, doesn't mean you can throw the sexism card frivolously and make it stick. People hate Hillary for her behavior, her sense of entitlement; her pattern of saying ANYTHING to get elected. She is the "hate monger" that keeps giving and giving. She's like Anne Coulture on the left. Everything she and Bill say, every tactic they engage in (FL, MI, Superdelegates, etc..) just makes people hate them more and more.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:45 PM on 02/17/2008

The truth at the core of Reardon's remarks is that we have not arrived at a point where sexist remarks are as distasteful as racist remarks. My lifetime has spanned the transition from vicious jokes about blacks, Hispanics, and Asians -- often told in front of members of the race, because it was "just a joke." We are far beyond that ugly history today, but we have not advanced as far from sexist humor and sexist attitudes.

The gender-specific attacks on Clinton are largely not because she is a woman but because she, personally, is disliked. That doesn't justify them, but it put them in a different category than HRC's supporters would have them.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:13 PM on 02/20/2008

I come from four generations of very strong women. I do not believe that's the issue here. I would love to see a woman in the White House, too. When Bill Clinton lied on Obama, Hillary said he had done no wrong. If Hillary justifies Bill's lies, how is Obama supposed to control what comes from individuals utilizing their right to free speech. Everything she does is calculated. Looking ahead to her thirst for power, she thought it a good thing to appear "hard" on terrorism. She voted to go to war. She now makes the excuse, she didn't know what she was voting for. Come on now. That's even more reason why she should definitely not be elected to the presidency. Attacking Obama, she attempts to come across strong but the opposite is the result. She is so confused and desperate. Hillary's tactics change like the weather. Barack Obama has not attacked her. That's Hillary's mo. Listen to her speeches and to his. Hear it for yourselves. Hillary is the person who is divisive. Always has been. She's known for speaking in a disrespectful manner, cursing and demeaning people. I voted to elect her husband, both times. I often wondered why people seemed to hate them so, now I know. Hillary agreed to the rules on Florida and Michigan, now that she is behind, she wants to change. Should backroom deals with super delegates determine who the nominee is? She says she has more experience. How? Prior to his becoming a U.S. Senator Barack had legislative experience in the Illinois Senate, creating bills, some becoming law. Hillary has none. Being first lady does not qualify you to be president. Another of her comments is that she is battle-tested. Does surviving numerous scandals surrounding her and her husband give her what's needed to run our country? I think not. Hilliary and Bill fought to keep all of her White House correspondence, from the public. Won't release her financial info. People check out anything I've said here. SEEK THE TRUTH! She is NOT being targeted for being a woman.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:39 PM on 02/17/2008

On another note, to those who say they will not support the Democratic candidate in the fall if so-and-so does or doesn't do such-and-such, I say fine. Do what you want. But after making that declaration, don't expect to continue to have a voice in the primary campaign, because you have disqualified yourselves from that. This is a DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. Non-Democrats don't get to have a voice in it, and people who would let the NeoCons have their way rather than vote for a Democrat, even if he or she isn't the Democrat they wanted, are not Democrats. So, don't vote Democratic if you don't want to. That's your right. But after you have announced that, STFU.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 06:28 PM on 02/17/2008

I've searched far and wide for a real women's studies scholar that believes that Hillary Clinton's best line of attack is to position herself as a victim.

I haven't found one.

And, as you know, there is no evidence to support your argument.

I'm sorry your candidate is not able to capture and hold the attention of voters. For crying out loud, my own mother, a Women's Liberation activist from the late sixties through the 1970's, is angry at your candidate, AND FOR THE VERY LINE YOU'VE HERE LAID DOWN.

What are the odds that - instead of smears, innuendo, distortions, negative attack ads, and the gender card flown under the primary color flag of victim status - you might consider just running a positive campaign and presenting your policies to the American people?

Now, your candidate's campaign organization is working WITH THE REPUBLICAN nominee.

It's like you'll try anything but the straightforward path of . . . well . . . a campaign.

You've blamed the caucuses, the primaries, gender, the press, the chairman of YOUR OWN PARTY . . . and on and on and on.

You DO realize, I pray, that people see what you're doing. Do you think ANYONE - or at least anyone sane - wants THAT in the White House.

Hillary Clinton has already changed her slogan three times. I think she should change it again . . .

Hillary - Controversy, Blame, Guilt, Down with Charisma, Mismanagement, Distortion and "I'm a victim of . . . (fill in the blank this week)"

I felt bad for your candidate UNTIL I saw her exploiting this stuff . . .

Then the delegate swipe thing. "Oh, no," I thought. Which is why I signed the MoveOn.org petition to keep Hillary from stealing the election:

"The Democratic Party must be democratic. The superdelegates should let the voters decide between Clinton and Obama, then support the people's choice."

http://pol.moveon.org/superdelegates/?rc=homepage

Sorry, but you CAN'T STOP A MOVEMENT that arises from We The People. You can't. No matter how much spin and distortion and under-the-table deals you try to pull off.

"Yes We Can!"

Let's get out the vote this Tuesday!!!

OBAMA '08!!!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:55 PM on 02/17/2008

BREAKING: New Battleground Head-To-Head Matchup Polls
by dansac
Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM PST
A subtitle should be: super-delegates look in here!!

Rasmussen put out new head-to-head match-ups between McCain and Obama and McCain and Clinton in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Oregon.

Here's what you're saying to yourself: "Pennsylvania and Oregon, battleground states? No way. Not in this year of all years, those are safe Democratic states!" Really? Read on:

dansac's diary :: ::
First, the top-line news:

Pennsylvania:
Obama 49%
McCain 39%

McCain 44%
Clinton 42%

Oregon:
Obama 49%
McCain 40%

McCain 45%
Clinton 42%

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 04:28 PM on 02/17/2008

Nice post.

And OUTSIDE the margin of error.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 02/17/2008

Kathleen, thank you for your post. But I've read through it three times and I'm confused. Where is all the nastiness you are talking about? I've heard Clinton repeatedly attacked for her votes on war with Iraq and Iran. That's policy. I've heard her campaign and her husband derided for their race-baiting smears on Obama. That's politics.

Exactly where are the nasty attacks on Clinton because of her gender? What am I missing?

To be brutally honest, the primary source of sexism in this campaign seems to be coming from Hillary's diehard supporters who seem to be willing to give her a complete pass and excuse all her policies and votes because she's a woman.

It's hard not to get my fur up when I constantly read from Clinton supporters like yourself that I am somehow a knuckle dragging ape because I'm supporting Obama and because I don't howl in protest every time Clinton is critized for her policies.

Obama represents a change in tone and direction for a new millieum. That's what I as an American citizen and a world citizen and looking for. For me, Clinton represents the past and her support of the Iraq war, her vote to authorize this evil, incompetent administration to attack Iran is pretty damned hard to swallow.

But you know what. If Clinton gets the nod at the convention, I will put her sign in my yard and I will vote for her. Because I can agree with 75% of what she represents and because I recognzie that this country and the world cannot afford another neanderthal, incompetent republican administration. Especially with the doddering war-mongering McCain.

But it seems Clinton supporters would rather walk away from the fight if your candidate doesn't win. I been a Hillary suppporter from way back in the 90s and I taken a lot of crap over the years from family, coworkers and neighbors. I would have supported her now but she walked away from me on the war.

Please do some soul searching Ms Rearden and ask if you haven't overpersonallized this campaign.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 03:43 PM on 02/17/2008

Honey you can't see the truth because of the Obamalaid!

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 02/17/2008

Sarnald49 sweetheart, I've been drinking John Edwards Koolaide for most of the last year. So I'm a recent convert to the Obamalaid. Mmmmm, taste like victory. Taste like the future. You might want to try some and stop swiggin that old Hillary rot gut.

XXOO
Rockwell

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 AM on 02/18/2008

A brilliant post.

Thank you.

favoriteFavorite Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 PM on 02/17/2008