HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » A Few Modest Suggestions ...

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:47 PM

A Few Modest Suggestions for Making DU's Presidential OPs More Friendly to Women

Since some may claim that they do not understand when they are denigrating women with their posts, here are some suggestions:

1) If you feel yourself tempted to call a woman candidate or political leader of either party witch, bitch, bimbo, slut, whore or cunt---DON'T.If you have a specific complaint, take a few minutes to clarify and put into words your complaint. Do not resort to sexist name calling, even if you think that "everyone" will know what you are really talking about. Everyone will know what you are talking about, and trust me, it is not something pretty. If you must use profanity, try gender neutral profanity like asshole, dirtbag, shit for brains.

2. If you feel yourself tempted to say of anyone "She is good on women and children's issues, but---" DON'T. You have just marginalized women and children who make up over half the world. If you have some specific issue for which you think the candidate deserves phrase but not elected office--for instance, helping to broker peace in Northern Ireland--say "She helped broker peace in Northern Ireland, but that does not qualify her to tackle______ at home." And then tell us which issues the candidate can not tackle at home.

3. If you feel yourself tempted to write "She only got where she is because of some man"---DON'T. Politics is an expensive and time consuming business. Every politician got ahead thanks to the help of someone else. Jack Kennedy had his dad and his dad's fortune. LBJ had Brown & Root. W. had his dad and Karl Rove. John Kerry has his wife's money---you wouldn't say "John Kerry is where he is today only because of his wife" would you?

4. If you feel yourself absolutely compelled to criticized clothing, hair or ankle width---ask yourself when was the last time you did a scathing piece about Mitch O'Connell's wardrobe malfunctions? Yes, we all talk about Boehner's fake tan and Trent Lott's atrocious rug, but that is because they are so obviously fake. Tell you what, if a female running for office puts on a pair of huge fake breasts and huge fake derrière and wears them to a public event, you have my permission to make fun of that--the same way you would if a man stuffed socks down his underwear. But do not make a political point about normal street clothes. Clothes do not make the man and they do not make the woman.

Keep these four rules in mind, and the discourse will still be heated but at least it won't offend as many women. And really, if you absolutely despise a certain female candidate, do you want to encourage all other women to rally around her just because they perceive that she is the target of a sexist attack?

45 replies, 1612 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 45 replies Author Time Post
Reply A Few Modest Suggestions for Making DU's Presidential OPs More Friendly to Women (Original post)
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 OP
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #1
PeaceNikki Feb 2015 #2
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #6
hifiguy Feb 2015 #8
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 #12
TBF Feb 2015 #30
PeaceNikki Feb 2015 #10
Erich Bloodaxe BSN Feb 2015 #14
PeaceNikki Feb 2015 #15
cui bono Feb 2015 #17
F4lconF16 Feb 2015 #29
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 #4
Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #3
vi5 Feb 2015 #5
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 #9
closeupready Feb 2015 #13
Major Nikon Mar 2015 #43
MineralMan Feb 2015 #7
kiva Feb 2015 #11
progressoid Feb 2015 #16
nichomachus Feb 2015 #18
cui bono Feb 2015 #25
dissentient Feb 2015 #19
cui bono Feb 2015 #22
dissentient Feb 2015 #23
cui bono Feb 2015 #24
dissentient Feb 2015 #26
zeemike Feb 2015 #33
HERVEPA Feb 2015 #27
dissentient Feb 2015 #28
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 #37
cui bono Feb 2015 #20
Iggo Feb 2015 #21
Oilwellian Feb 2015 #31
herding cats Feb 2015 #34
McCamy Taylor Feb 2015 #38
cui bono Feb 2015 #39
HereSince1628 Feb 2015 #32
Doctor_J Feb 2015 #35
Jamastiene Mar 2015 #42
Doctor_J Mar 2015 #44
BeanMusical Mar 2015 #45
winter is coming Feb 2015 #36
Hekate Mar 2015 #40
Jamastiene Mar 2015 #41

Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:52 PM

1. Um, #2 = Hillary Clinton.

She's made women's, and to a lesser extent children's issues her life's work. Pointing that out does nothing to 'marginalize' women or children.

I have no issues with your #1, 3, or 4, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:54 PM

2. I think it's the "...but..." that's a problem. And I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:59 PM

6. What's the problem with 'but'?

To be honest, I think she 'gives with one hand' and 'takes away with the other'. She's great on issues that are generally identified as 'women's issues' in political discussions, but then supports corporate welfare over human welfare that undermines those same women and children by trapping them in crappy economic situations that result in them needing government aid they wouldn't need if they just had a government that reined in corporate and plutocratic power over labor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:01 PM

8. All of this!

 

Economic royalism/corporatism and war-hawkery, the KEY issues of our time, are not cancelled out by good stands on other issues.

I would happily, ecstatically, even, support Senator Warren. She stands up for the people. My issues are specifically with HRC, who does NOT stand with ordinary people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:04 PM

12. See the forest as well as the trees---it makes finding solutions a lot easier.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hifiguy (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:40 PM

30. I agree -

I thought pointing out her positive stances on civil rights, women's rights and LGBT rights was a good thing. For many of us though she is a second choice candidate. Of course I would choose her over Scott Walker. Who wouldn't? But in terms of her economic alliances there are concerns. Strong wall street connections, Walmart board member for several years, author of provisions of TPP. No candidate is perfect but as someone who favors labor I'd love to see a more labor - friendly candidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:02 PM

10. It minimizes everything before it.

You don't agree?

meh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PeaceNikki (Reply #10)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:08 PM

14. No, I don't.

If I say, you have X, and Y, but not Z, does that automatically 'minimize' X and Y? Or is it simply a way to indicate that you're about to place a divider between two sets of items about which you're talking?

I grow apples and cherries in my backyard, but not pears.

Does that somehow 'minimize' my apples and cherries?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:15 PM

15. mmm hmm. you disagree. noted.

I am not going to convince you otherwise nor will I pick nits with you.

We disagree and I will move on.

Good day!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:56 PM

17. I kind of agree with you, but when used on "women's issues" for a female candidate it does

make it seem belittling in that she's only seen as good on women's issues. What if people said Obama, he's good on black issues but... Or the same about a latino/hispanic candidate.

It makes it seem that that's all a woman can be about.

On the other hand, when discussing a candidate, one looks at what their stance is on all issues and if in the case of a woman candidate, if that's the case, then it must be said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:38 PM

29. +1 nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Erich Bloodaxe BSN (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:57 PM

4. It isn't just Clinton. Sen. Nelson in Texas Senate (GOP) is very interested in "women's issues"

like health care access, schools, that kind of thing. Makes her popular with her constituents but I never hear the GOP promote her for higher office. That's because they perceive her a "women and children's" politician. The only gender neutral issues for them are "oil, oil and oil."

I suspect that everyone knows of a similar female politician who has hit the political glass ceiling. I am not advocating for a female Republican candidate, but it galls me when I see one of either party treated like this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:55 PM

3. DU Rec.

thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 01:59 PM

5. A few things:

 

1) A lot of these seem very specific to one candidate in particular and not women in general.

2) Most of the time the "but" as far as women and children's issues comes from defenders, after people point out how atrocious that certain someone's foreign and economic policies are. So at that point a person is forced to concede that "but". I've rarely if ever seen it come out of the blue an dismissed at the outset. And I'm all for this as long as when that person's foreign policy and economic positions are discussed and taken issue with, that in defense of them the supporter doesn't play that same card. Deal?

3) You admit yourself that men's physical appearances get mocked all the time but.....for some reason that doesn't count? I don't get it? How many times has McConnells neck and physical appearance been mocked by calling him "turtle"? How many times does Chris Christie's weight get talked about? I'm not sure you, me or anyone in particular gets to decided which physical attributes are o.k. to talk about and which ones aren't, do we? If so let me know when the meetings are so I can be sure to make the next one.

4) To answer your question, yes a lot of people at the time he was running made comments about Kerry's wife and her money and her connections.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:02 PM

9. IMHO every mention of Christie's weight deserves censure. It is a mean, rude attack.

There are plenty of issue attacks that can be made instead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:05 PM

13. Disagree strongly. Obesity is well-documented as correlating with very high mortality.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to vi5 (Reply #5)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 07:00 AM

43. Evidently women need EXTRA protection

Which sounds kinda like benevolent sexism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:00 PM

7. K&R. I have nothing to add to your excellent OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:03 PM

11. Yes, exactly what you said.

Calling a woman any of those things in #1 insults women. I don't care if she's the Republican Anti-Christ, Ceiling Cat-hating, Fundamentalist (fill in the religious blank), racist, sexist, homophobic mess - that doesn't make her any of those things...many of which refer to sexual habits and not political beliefs.

When Palin ran as VP someone on DU said what she really needed was 11 inches shoved up her *@$). It was hidden, but anyone who would say that doesn't just not respect Sarah Palin, they don't respect women, period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:51 PM

16. #2 doesn't compute.

Regardless of gender, one can be praised for being successful in one area and criticized for something else. It does nothing to degrade their successes with the former issue. Or, diminish that issue.

For instance, I make a pretty good shrimp scampi, but am not so good with quantum mechanics. So, if you want shrimp scampi, I'm the guy. If you want to discuss the behavior of the subatomic particles, you might want someone else.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 02:57 PM

18. "John Kerry has his wife's money" Really?

Yes, Teresa has money, but Kerry also came from money - maybe not as substantial as his wife's, but enough.

Also, Kerry was a successful politician at the state and federal level before he even met Teresa. He was elected to the Senate, in a very tough race, in 1984. He actually defeated the party favorite.

He didn't meet Teresa until the early '90s, when he was already an established figure in Washington politics.

So, if anyone were to say that he got where he is with his wife's money, they don't know what they're talking about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nichomachus (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:29 PM

25. Well that's really nitpicking. Just substitute another example that works for you then.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Look at the point being made even if you don't think that's a good example.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:02 PM

19. I think everyone should just express themselves freely, and not worry about

 

what kind of strict standards another may have regarding conversation. [url=http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/skype-emoticons.html][img][/img][/url]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:04 PM

22. Um.... no.

You think people should just blurt out racist and sexist things whenever they like?

What if you were saying something sexist without realizing it came off that way? Wouldn't you want to know? Or is it okay to offend and demean women because of lack of awareness?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:09 PM

23. Yes, then they can be banned if they say racist stuff. Better that, then they try and be sneaky

 

about it. Let them expose themselves! [url=http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/facebook-smileys.html][img][/img][/url]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #23)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:27 PM

24. But there are many people who aren't really racist or sexist but say things that are offensive

without being aware of it. Don't you want yourself and them enlightened when that happens? Would you want to be saying something you didn't realize was sexist because nobody bothered to explain to you that it is sexist?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cui bono (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:31 PM

26. Yes, I agree that free and open communication is best

 

that way, we can come to the debate on honest ground.

Honesty is the best policy, I don't want racists hiding and not being honest about what they really think. Same with sexists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 04:51 PM

33. The N word is a good example of how that works.

In days gone by you knew them by it, and now it is never spoken at all, but instead it is referred to as a letter...
And racism did not go away, and in fact IMO has grown sense we stopped using it...now I am not saying it was the word that caused anything, but what it did is give cover to racist because as long as they never used the word you could not accuse them.

When you start making words the problem all you can expect is a change in words.
Attitudes have to be changed through education not restrictions on speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:32 PM

27. Agree. I don't need anyone making rules for me on this site except Skinner.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:36 PM

28. I agree, good point! I think the ones in charge should declare it when they want new rules for the

 

discussion. I think it's strange that one DU member gets to decide the ground rules for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dissentient (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 27, 2015, 12:11 AM

37. So I can post "cracker redneck troll" without any fear?

Good to know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:02 PM

20. Rec. Also just wanted to point out a typo in case you want to fix it...

in 2. it says "candidate deserves phrase". I think you meant praise. Otherwise you'll have to explain what phrase means in this instance.

I would say that I totally get what you're saying in 4., however, there is plenty of ridicule thrown at male politicians regarding appearance. Turtle, squirrel on head, floating eyebrows, etc... I do agree though, that it is taken farther into criticizing more "normal" appearance issues, such as why they wore a particular outfit or color that men don't get. This one is a more subtle thing that because of all the ridicule thrown out for males as well will be harder to grasp/change I think, but kudos for bringing it up.

Where I see this as more of a problem is in other areas such as broadcasters and TV reporters. Females definitely get scrutinized for how they look and once they hit a certain age are usually taken off the air.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:04 PM

21. Who's doing that?

Because that's fucked-up bullshit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 03:55 PM

31. No one, that I've seen

But around here, all it takes is one, and it's Invasion of the Body Snatchers time. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 05:17 PM

34. I personally saw a variation of #3 on DU

Someone said she hadn't earned anything, but she did sleep with the guy who got a BJ in the oval office.

It's a decent example of what the OP is addressing, I think.

There could be more out there of the sort and I wouldn't know. I usually stay out of the conversations here about Hillary, I only saw that one because it was linked to in another thread.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Iggo (Reply #21)

Fri Feb 27, 2015, 12:13 AM

38. Check one of my OP's and scroll down. Unless the writer deleted it. "Good on women and children

issues but..." Blew my mind. Since when are women and children not part of humanity or the American electorate. And variations of this are said a lot, too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #38)

Sat Feb 28, 2015, 05:12 PM

39. Honestly, in a duscussion of a candidate I don't think the "but" negates what was said before.

Substitute "environment" or "economic policy" for "women's issues" and put "women's issues" after the "but" and it doesn't belittle the environment or economics.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 04:34 PM

32. Funny, the same argument could be made about mental illness and how stigma of it is promoted

But, there are a whole lot of threads reacting to gop personalities re gender and orientation issues, stigmatizing words for mental illness flow pretty freely.

Leaning against is it is a futile effort. DUers love their yeoman access to free speech, Collateral Damage Be Damned.

This IS NOT DU 2.0 anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 10:07 PM

35. do you mean more friendly to Hillary? because I have not seen any of these on du

 

What is this op for?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #35)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 05:28 AM

42. Where were you during the 2008 primaries?

DU rivaled any right wing site when it came to the misogyny back then. It is one thing to be against some of her policies and saying so. That is no problem. Some of what happened in 2008 and might start happening again on DU is not necessary. There are plenty of valid complaints about some of her policies that can be stated without calling her misogynistic names and some of the other horrid crap that happened back in 2008.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jamastiene (Reply #42)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 01:09 PM

44. I've been here since 2001 and your statement is ridiculous

 

DU rivaled any right wing site when it came to the misogyny back then.


Patently false, and you cannot possibly find any quotes to back it up. Why is it that a portion of DU insists that criticism of Hillary's support for KXL and from Wall Street constitutes "misogyny as bad as that at any right wing site"?

Some of what happened in 2008 and might start happening again on DU


Guess what. She wants to be president and some think the party can do better. Does it dampen your outrage over the perceived sexism that most who don't favor HRC have a preference for Warren? Does Clinton somehow have a greater claim to the mantle of "woman candidate" than the senator from Harvard?

One reason the party has fallen so far since 2008 is that too many of the president's fans blame all criticism of him on racism. If you want this debacle to continue, then by all means ignore Hillary's policies and defend her entirely on her gender. And in the meantime drag out a few links to quotes from DUers that bash her gender instead of her corporatist policies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Doctor_J (Reply #44)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 03:50 PM

45. Congratulation, you just trashed an ally.

You seem to have reading comprehension problems, Doc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Thu Feb 26, 2015, 10:19 PM

36. Modest suggestions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 03:53 AM

40. You just keep plugging away, McCamy. KnR

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Original post)

Sun Mar 1, 2015, 05:14 AM

41. What gets me is that some of the same people who did things like post

pictures of Hillary Clinton tied up and burning at the state are the same ones who are now telling anyone who may want a more liberal candidate that they are not real Democrats. I'm not talking about you, because you always post in a positive way.

But there have been some real misogynistic posts by others dating back to AT LEAST 2008 against her. I would much rather someone post that they are against her Iraq War vote or connections to The Family and the Koch Brothers without seeing some of that anti woman vitriol. If they say they are against her Iraq War vote, connections to some of the worst right wing groups around, and other positions that are not at least center, much less center left or left, and they can manage to do it without that horrible crap that happened back in 2008 and some of the other misogynist crap some posters use. I have no complaint if someone expresses they are against some of her actions and stances on the issues. That is the way it should be. I happen to be against some of her connections to far right groups and some of her policies that are too pro war for my taste, but, I would honestly hate to see the nastiness that came from a lot of the worst of the 2008 primary wars on DU come back again.

If she does run, I will wait and see who they put up against her in the primaries if anyone does run against her in the primaries. It may turn out none of who they offer up is any better on those issues. In that case, I will vote for her. If someone is to the left of her, consistently, I will probably vote for that person in the primaries. I was once one of her most ardent supporters, but there have been too many disturbing things brought up about her through the years and I'm getting to that age in life where I am burned out on politics. I'm sick of having to vote for blue dogs in my own home state. I just wish I could vote for someone who is more in line with my way of looking at things when it comes to the primaries at the national level. I'm not 100% sold on Warren (I have serious trust issues with her past Republican support), but that does not mean I would not vote for her. Hillary is not perfect, but I could vote for her in a pinch if no one to the left is against her in the primaries.

One thing I do know: I do not want to see another damn Bush anywhere NEAR the White House again. I'll vote for Clinton, Warren, a rattlesnake, a three legged dog, a spider, or pretty much anything or anyone else but a damn Republican and especially against another Bush, if it comes down to it and we didn't get some kind of liberal shift off the ground by then. If it turns out to be someone else entirely on the Democratic side, I will vote for them, assuming they don't stomp a kitten or a puppy to death or some such other outrageously horrid thing. I do have my limitations. I would be willing to bet we all do. Some have already reached that limit. If they can manage to express that without doing the stuff in your list AND keep from posting photos of her and making fun of her the way people did back in 2008, I got no beef with them expressing their opinion. If they need to do that type of misogynist crap, they aren't my kind of people. If they are against her because they are more to the left and they just simply say so, I don't see the problem. I really cannot think of anything else I have to say until we even know who is running.

For now, it is way too early to start this crap, really. Why are we trying to have imaginary primaries on DU NOW? It is an entire year and a half early. There is no way in Hell I want to see that much primary vitriol for a solid year and a half. I will end up having to take a solid 2 year break from DU if the type of crap that happened in 2008 starts up again.

Really. We don't even know who is or is not running yet. Why are we having primary wars on DU so early? I don't get it.

Everything negative that can be said, already has been said repeatedly on DU, about pretty much everyone who might or might not run. What enjoyment does anyone get out of arguing back and forth like that for THAT LONG?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread