How much criticism of Hillary and Nancy here is driven by sexism?

[Zandor]

Sexism, racism, all kinds of bigotry are often subconscious and progressives can be guilty of these.

It just seems the venom directed at these ladies is especially strong, and unmatched by the barbs directed at the male Democrats. The attacks seem to be more personal, as well.

[robinlynne]

1. I'll go with none.

[TahitiNut]

16. I pretty much agree. None or very little.

It's always handy, hoever, for the supporters of anyone to claim that some kind of bigotry is at work in the opposition. As I've said before, that was the 'signature argument' of an infamous former DUer who'd repeatedly claim (regarding Joe Lieberman) that "You just dislike him because he's Jewish." (I'm fairly certain there are other current and former DUers who believe this - and ignore the principled basis for aversion to his behavior.) It's just as impossible to penetrate the thick skull of someone who invalidly ascribes bigotry to another as someone harboring bigotry.

[RiverStone]

92. I agree with your agreement

Very little or none.

DUers are by and large pretty independent thinkers. I believe the exact same criticism would be leveled at Hillary or Nancy if they were men.

It's their positions (or lack of taking a position) that has got them in trouble, not their gender.

[Blashyrkh]

109. Fourthed, I think. The fact it is trumpeted so loud by so few is proof that it is minimal, if any.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

2. Little. Next question.

[Horse with no Name]

3. How many of your posts are driven by hate and the desire to divide?

Fair question.

[Richard Steele]

108. What is "One Hundred Percent", Alex? nm

[Tesha]

122. And now we can move on directly to Double Jeopardy.

(Having "questioned that answer" correctly.)

[cosmik debris]

4. sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. n/t

[Deja Q]

8. What if they're an ash tray looking for the right cigar?

:hide:

[tkmorris]

5. Absolutely none

What a ridiculous insinuation.

[againes654]

6. Did you ever consider that the criticism is just?

Did you ever consider that some don't agree with their actions?

Criticism is necessary; bashing Hillary's laugh for instance, is unnecessary. There is a difference, and a BIG difference at that. Can you seperate the criticism from the bashing?

[Zandor]

10. The laugh is a good example.

Any men getting criticized for thta kind of stuff?

[againes654]

23. Did you read all of my post or just what you can latch on to?

There is a HUGE difference between criticism and bashing. I don't like Hillary's stand on several issues. Criticizing her vote on K/L is ok. People should feel free to question that. Just as they should feel free to question why Kucinich voted against the SCHIP bill. Bashing her over her laugh is silly, and takes away from the real issues.

Can you understand the difference????

[Zandor]

28. You're making my point

People don't stop at criticizing her on issues. They take it to a more personal level, like the laugh.

[againes654]

39. Stop bundling everyone into one group

not all "PEOPLE" are doing this. That is prejudicial.

[Zandor]

42. Some are n/t

[againes654]

48. Some aren't

People don't stop at criticizing her on issues. They take it to a more personal level, like the laugh.


You never said some people don't stop at criticizing her on issues. They take it to a more personal level.

Of course there are sexist, racist people out there, but not everyone that disagrees with Hillary should be put into this group.

For someone that is so offended by sexist, racist comments (I am too), you sure are quick to lump one group of people together (I don't do this).

[Zandor]

54. I actually agree with you

Not everyone is guilty of it, and not all criticism of her is completely due to sexism.

I'm just saying some is.

[againes654]

58. Please don't

If you had said, some instead of is all of the criticism of Hillary and Nancy sexist? Don't back track now.

[Zandor]

105. Where did I say all? n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

24. One word: haircut. -nt

[Donnachaidh]

32. when I hear a false braying sound coming from one of them

I'll snark as much as I did towards HRC.

[oregonjen]

41. Sure, Al Gore and his sigh, Howard Dean and the scream

It's the attack the messenger instead of the message. That hasn't changed.

[robinlynne]

45. Howard Dean.

[Stewie]

75. Dean's "scream"?

No different than Hillary's laugh. In fact, he got even more criticism. They make fun of Kucinich for looking boyish, Edwards for his hair, Dodd for being 65 with a four-year-old daughter, Gravel for looking like Wilford Brimley.

If you're a public figure, people make fun of you. It's not sexism.

[Blashyrkh]

110. Dean's Scream. Next.

[cuke]

17. Do you ever consider that some of the criticism is not just?

Or is any criticism of Hillary just?

[againes654]

34. No not all of it is just

just like not all of those that don't support Hillary engage in bashing her. She has some legitimate issues that people should feel free to question, or criticize. So do all of the other candidates. SOME of it is just.

[cuke]

81. The OP isn't about "just" criticism

It's about the vitriol, and your post suggests that NONE of the criticism is unfair. The OP asks "How much". You reply "It's just"

And yes, there are assholes in every camp, but there's no denying that HRC is the recipient of the largest share of assholery

[againes654]

86. You obviously didn't read everything I said

There is a difference between criticism and bashing. We do still live in a country where is it ok to criticize ANYONE. Bashing is different, but still allowed. I disagree with the bashing, but not the criticizing. Can you see the difference?

What criticism is unjust?

BTW, over 450 posts in 4 days??? Wow I thought I had racked up posts quick.

[robinlynne]

47. leave Britney alone!

[Deja Q]

7. It's always based on which body parts or skin color one has;

surely capability and veracity have nothing to with it, why are YOU being sexist?

(My counter-accusation was meant to be sarcastic, but how does it feel when you summarily accuse any number of people as being grossly sexist for disliking the actions of these politicians?)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

38. yes, because clearly racism and sexism dont exist. some idiot just made it up for amusement.

[kdmorris]

9. I disagree

Male dems who are corporate shills are attacked just as strongly as "Hilary and Nancy". I dislike Hilary Clinton because of her views. I'm angry at Nancy Pelosi because she hasn't been able to get done what she promised.

BTW, you DO know that it's considered sexist to call women by their first names while NOT doing the same with men, don't you?

[tritsofme]

11. Would a similar question be asked if our party leaders at this time happened to be males?

I don't think there was an exactly loving relationship around here with Dick Gephardt and Tom Daschle when they were leaders.

[DFW]

12. Do you mean on the DU as a whole?

Some, maybe, but most of what I've seen, whether I agree or disagree
did not appear to be gender-motivated. "Just business," to quote from
"The Godfather." If their politics had been like those of Al Gore and
John Edwards, they would have been nominated for sainthood here long ago.

[Misc]

13. Little at most.

Isn't it possible that people just react more strongly to these women for other reasons? Perhaps something about the way they talk or the things they have to say just evokes stronger feelings than other candidates who put themselves out there less.
Do you have some desire to make this an issue of gender?
In my opinion sexism (and racism) can't end if people keep trying to make them an issue, as it appears is being done here.

[Zandor]

18. So keep quiet about bigotry and it will go away?

Dr. King disagreed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

21. LOL

You're such a card.

[tkmorris]

35. See bigotry in every comment and thus deflect criticism

Dr. King would have disagreed with that too.

[againes654]

43. You make my brain hurt sometimes

:hurts:

[cali]

Wrong. Racism and sexism can't end

if we pretend they don't exist and refuse to confront them.

[againes654]

90. That is true

but you devalue it when you scream sexism or racism when that is not the case (or only the case with SOME people). Most people are not criticizing Hillary or Nancy based on sexism. That doesn't mean sexism doesn't exist, but it isn't relevant in this case. Again, that applies to most, but never all.

[cali]

94. who's the you you're referring to?

Do you notice me "screaming" sexism in regard to Pelosi or Clinton?

I actually have no idea how much of the antipathy to either is rooted in sexism. Surely some of it is, but I think it's far more comlicated than that. However there's a significant amount of sexist language used in criticism of both. And I absolutely think that stating that Clinton owes ALL her success to her husband, is freakin' sexist as all get out. Don't you?

[againes654]

100. Yes, the thinking that she owes her success to Bill is sexist

but that also isn't criticism, that is bashing. I see a difference. I have no doubt in my mind that there are those that are sexist when it comes to Hillary. Do I think those people frequent DU, no, unless they are freepers. I would think that DU'ers are smarter than that, and can look deeper than thinking that it has to be sexist in reference to Hillary and/or Nancy. Do I think that there are some DU'ers that enjoy bashing, just for the enjoyment, yes I do. I still don't think it is rooted in sexism IMHO.

[Fresh_Start]

14. Some of it.....

Have you ever seen a man criticized for his 'cackle'?

[Zandor]

15. Exactly n/t

[TahitiNut]

27. How often are women criticized for not being tall or spending too much on their hair??

That brush paints both ways.

:shrug:

[Fresh_Start]

46. Thats not sexism re being tall

thats bigotry all right but not sexism. I don't recall seeing a DU thread explicitedly criticizing someone for not being tall. Do you have one in mind or are you generalizing from society's bias against short people (BTW, I'm 5'3" so I'm not going to criticize anyones height).

Hillary was criticized for her haircare as well as Edwards.
I saw both of those as red herrings.

But anti-Hillary threads minimizing her happen practically every day.

[TahitiNut]

51. LOL!

[Fresh_Start]

55. do you find that critical of someone's height?

I just see a beautiful tall redhead.

[TahitiNut]

66. I find it hard to believe anyone could miss the sneers aimed at Kucinich based on his height..

"Dwarf" "elf" ... etc. :shrug:

[Fresh_Start]

77. Sorry the people I hang with don't do/say that

and I haven't seen that on a DU thread.
Are you reading it on DU or are you hearing it somewhere else?

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

71. "But anti-Hillary threads minimizing her happen practically every day."

That is not sexism, that is the price one must pay for being the candidate who has been ordained as the front-runner by the MSM. A candidate that quite justifiably deserves to be taken to task for some of her positions and her votes.

Now, I can understand why some here might support her because she might become America's first woman president. Especially women. We have gone artificially too long without attaining that milestone. That said, questioning and even criticizing her is not sexism, it's politics, and once again, my faith that a free and open debate on this candidate can even occur is shaken, because the supporters of this candidate seem to be willing to use any device to nip criticism and debate in the bud. Any device, including starting to nibble around the margins of "The S Word".

It is starting to look as if Clinton supporters will not countenance any discussion of their candidate. I wonder what the Clinton's would say about that?

I doubt they would say anything good.

[Fresh_Start]

89. Can't agree with you.

Criticism comes with being a politician and front runner.

The 'where would she be without Bill' is sexist at its core.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

93. I disagree.

They have been married how many years? They have been, through thick and thin, a partnership. Without the reality of that partnership, can we say that she would be playing on a national stage today?

No, we cannot, for it is doubtful she would be.

[Fresh_Start]

96. Are you pretending that people are saying the same thing

about the other candidates?

Where would Obama be without his wife?
Where would Gravel be without his wife?
Where would Kucinich be without his wife?
For that matter, where would Romney be without his wife?
Where would McCain be without his wife?

[againes654]

101. And don't forget Guliani

where would he be without his 911 wives.

I couldn't resist that one.

[Fresh_Start]

104. and Fred and his political activist wife

but I figure some people might actually be asking that question of those two.

And I haven't seen the same on the names I list

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

116. Do other candidates...

Have a spouse who was President? Who allowed them to put themselves on a national stage in the unique manner Sen. Clinton has been blessed with?

[Virginia Dare]

125. I regularly see comments here..

about Nancy Pelosi's botox and her $1,000 suits. Those comments are sexist, no other way to paint them.

[IndianaJones]

19. much of it. nt.

[Stinky The Clown]

20. Virtually none

It is driven by honest passion for some, stupidity for some, lack of maturity for some, lack of understanding of how government works for some ......

If you keep listing reasons, you'll final come down to sexism. Nothing will be lower.

On edit ..... "Hillary and Nancy"????

Maybe Sen Clinton and Leader Pelosi?

Yeah, Clinton likes to go by Hillary. I grant that. I NEVER heard Pelosi refer to herself as "Nancy"

Just sayin ......

[Bluebear]

22. How many of your posts are driven by a desire to stir arguments that weren't there?

[IndianaJones]

26. Isn't that almost all threads here? nt.

[Bluebear]

31. Not by a long shot.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. Methinks he bats .999 or better. -nt

[Enrique]

25. 42.7%

roughly

[La Lioness Priyanka]

30. a lot. apparantly hillary could get nothing accomplished without bill

even credit for her graduating from ivy leagues schools arent to her credit but her parents

she doesnt have the right laugh.

[Zandor]

37. Good points n/t

[Fresh_Start]

40. I also see sexism here

especially in relationship to Hillary.

Personally I think the women of the party have more balls than all the men in the race in total.

[leftofthedial]

33. zip

nada

none of it

[Richard Steele]

36. I'm sorry...

TOO SUBTLE!


:eyes: :eyes:

[NotGivingUp]

44. i think in my case it's reverse sexism, if anything.

i am a feminist loud and proud. you would think it would be a happy day to see that a woman is being predicted to be the next president, but instead it is just another huge disappointment. hillary is nothing but a repuke asshole...just like her f'n husband. oh yes, and nancy stinks, too. lock them all up for screwing the american people over and over and over again.

[Der Blaue Engel]

49. "Hillary is nothing but a repuke asshole"?

Please tell me you forgot your sarcasm tag.

[Lyric]

50. More than I'm comfortable with.

It's no mere coincidence that the two most criticized Democrats in the current political climate both happen to be ground-breaking, role-bashing females. There's no way to "prove" what someone else is thinking/feeling when they bash those two ladies, and it's not like anyone here is going to come right out and *admit* a sexist bias. But I do believe that their female gender has a lot to do with the crap they take around here. The level of viciousness and knee-jerk aversion to ANYTHING that Hillary says or does isn't simple coincidence. I've rarely seen Democrats act this repulsively toward a male candidate--no matter how DLC centrist he might be.

[Zandor]

57. Good post n/t

[againes654]

65. You don't think some of it has to do with the actual issues?

[Der Blaue Engel]

91. Aknowledging the possibility of sexism doesn't mean it's all or nothing

I think it's the overall level of vitriol that seems to point to something more than just the issues being in play.

[Lyric]

103. I'm sure some of it does.

As I said, it's impossible to read someone's mind and *know* what their motives are. I have no way of knowing just how many dislike Clinton and Pelosi for being women, and how many dislike them solely on issues. But I do think that while some of the problem with these ladies is issue-based, some is also gender-based.

If you put *any* of our candidates under a microscope, you will find things to be upset and/or outraged about. I do not think it is mere coincidence that Clinton and Pelosi seem to be "examined" far more closely than the male Dems, criticized more heavily than the male Dems, and bashed around here far more often than the male Dems. Neither of those ladies are much worse or better than any of their male counterparts, but here on DU, they can't seem to do *anything* right.

If John Edwards or Barack Obama had unveiled a healthcare plan exactly like Clinton's, a retirement plan like Clinton's, or even the $5000 "baby bond" plan, I believe that a lot more people would be supportive of those ideas. It seems like people here hate Clinton's ideas JUST because they come from *her*. Nevermind the fact that we aren't hearing much of anything in the way of details from other candidates, so people are just blithely assuming that Edwards or Obama would be "soooo much better". Clinton is the only one who seems to respect our intelligence and opinions enough to let us examine her ideas *before* the election, so we actually have a chance to let her know our opinions and ideas for improvement before she's in the White House. It takes a lot of courage to put your neck out like that, and people here don't even give her credit for *that*.

There is more to this than just "issues".

[YOY]

52. Powerslam!

[Yael]

53. I would have to say none

As a female, I am looking at the issues. Sex is a strawman for people who don't want to debate the topics and are looking for an easy out to explain the lack of support they may perceive.

[Bitwit1234]

56. MOST OF IT.

[ThoughtCriminal]

59. Probably NONE

Reminds of Right-Wingers who labeled critisism of Colin Powell as racist - until he left the Administration and they started spitting on him.

Critisisms on policy stands are JUST that.

[zalinda]

60. Then you haven't been reading posts on Reid n/t

[Zandor]

63. He doesn't get the grief Nancy does

and it isn't as personal.

[gatorboy]

61. You forgot to mention Sheehan. Oh wait. You save her for your own sexist remarks.

"Would you be offended if I called Sheehan a whore?"

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1974932

[Zandor]

Nice try

My full post

"I wouldn't call her that. As much as I dislike the direction she has taken, it's sexist and unnecessary.

But since calling Hillary a whore seems acceptable to some, I'm wondering if they feel the same about Sheehan being called a whore."

[gatorboy]

80. Of course you didn't.

You were being hypothetical, yada yada. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

62. One, I tend to stick up for Nancy and even Hillary when warranted. But in answer to your question:

How much criticism do you see, around here, of Barbara Boxer?

Little to none, I would venture.

If the problem people have is with strong, outspoken women in politics, she should be getting an equal share, no?

[JDPriestly]

119. Same for Maxine Waters and Barbara Lee. No one is criticizing them.

[malaise]

64. Whatever n/t

[earth mom]

67. I'm a woman & I can't stand either of them because they've sold their souls to the devil. nt

[NotGivingUp]

102. Same here. n/t

[AlCzervik]

68. Cindy Sheehan and your hatred of her, sexism or is it different when it comes to you?

[Marr]

107. Yes, I seem to recall the OP using the word "screeching" in reference to

Cindy Sheehan.

Odd how that's alright but mocking Hillary Clinton's laugh is terrible.

[charlie]

69. How many of your posts are driven by Budweiser?

Don't you have better things to do, like finishing high school?

[Bluebear]

72. ......

:spray:

[Zandor]

79. Hilarious, Never heard that one.

:eyes:

[charlie]

I'm sure you haven't

But you've discovered the eye-rolly icon. Get the camera, our Zandor's growing up!

[gatorboy]

83. Come to think of it, he does seem to post after school lets out.

Maybe this is a human tolerance experiment for social studies.

[Der Blaue Engel]

70. I just asked this same question in another forum

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, sometimes it is in fact a duck smoking a cigar.

One thing I do know is that you will find very little self-examination or thoughtful consideration on this topic.

[Zandor]

73. Some seem to protest too much n/t

[Bluebear]

78. I have thoughtfully condsidered that my anger with "impeachment is off the table" is not sexist.

I don't see Pelosi as female, I see her as a Democratic leader; hence how is this sexist?

[Der Blaue Engel]

95. I didn't see anyone saying "Bluebear is sexist"

:)

I'm sure there are plenty of people like yourself who have already given it thoughtful consideration, but I'm equally certain that there are others who won't be doing the same.

So many people want to read every question posed on DU as an absolute or an accusation. There are many shades of gray between "all opposition to Nancy/Hillary is sexist" and "no opposition to Nancy/Hillary is sexist."

[Bluebear]

98. Shades of gray is of course the answer.

That's why Fox News-type questions like the OP are impossible to answer :)

[durrrty libby]

74. Plenty is driven by sexism. You don't expect the wads to admit it, do you?

[Raine]

76. None anyway not from me...

I can't stand Hillary but as any one can see I have a Pelosi avatar. I don't care what Hillary is...I don't support her. x(

[in_cog_ni_to]

82. ALL of it.

;) JUST KIDDING!:rofl:

I don't see DUers as being sexists. That would happen over a freeperville. I bash Nancy when she deserves to be bashed. Anyone who takes Impeachment off the table when crimes have been committed, deserves to be bashed. I haven't bashed Hillary since she's been running for prez. I have said I couldn't vote for her unless she apologized for her IWR vote and it doesn't look like she's going to do that, SO she won't get my vote in the Primary.

[DURHAM D]

84. Men know as much about sexism

as a pig knows about Sunday.

[Imagevision]

85. Zero, zilch, none, nada...

[slackmaster]

87. For each individual, the answer falls on a continuum from None to All

:shrug:

[Rhythm and Blue]

88. Very little. They both happen to be

in positions of power in the Party, and people with strong (but sometimes fringey) ideas get very angry at those who they believe are failing to live up to their promises to represent them.

[Le Taz Hot]

97. Is that all ya got?

Couldn't POSSIBLY be because of their spineless inaction. No sirreeee! :eyes:

[leftchick]

99. ZERO

I am a woman who hates their pandering and prevarications not the fact they are women.

[Marr]

106. How much of Hillary Clinton's support is purely based on her sex?

So far, the only pitch I've heard from Hillary's supporters is that it'd be super neato to have a female president.

[Lyric]

112. You say that like it's a trivial thing.

The White House is one of the thickest glass ceilings in the nation. Don't trivialize something that important to a LOT of women out here. If some people vote for Hillary because they believe that it's important to break down another barrier to women's equality, then that's a good enough reason for me.

[Marr]

115. It *is* a trivial thing.

Compared to the candidate's stance on the issues, genitalia is an incredibly trivial thing. I wouldn't dream of supporting someone simply because of their gender. That's just as sexist as refusing to support someone because of their gender.

[Ariana Celeste]

124. haha yeah

Not supporting the female candidate = Sexism.

Criticizing stances of female politician = Sexism.

Supporting the female candidate, largely due to her gender = not Sexism?

Hmmm.... doesn't make much sense to me, and yet, seems to be the case.

[spanone]

111. Sexism, racism, all kinds of bigotry are often subconscious and progressives can be guilty of these.

really?

[UGADUer]

113. Not much; there's more false-calling of racism/sexism I'd say

That's just my opinion.

[JerseygirlCT]

114. I don't think much

I think there's a certain amount of disappointment when women who've reached a certain position aren't doing better with their new-found power.

I think there's frustration with Congressional Dems in general, and as Speaker, Pelosi takes the brunt of that.

And I think there's frustration that Hillary could be something so much better than she's willing to be. Instead, she's presenting herself as safe, scared, cautious, and too beholden to special interests. I want to see a little fire, myself. And something to assure me she's not just going to offer iffy, weenie, safe positions carefully calibrated not to offend too many important people.

For that matter, an honest, simple apology for being an idiot WRT the Iraq war would be nice, too. Why in the world is it so hard to say: I was really wrong?

[GreenTea]

117. Complete bullshit! I voted for Boxer DiFI & Pelosi each time they ran-NEVER will I vote for Hillary!

[JDPriestly]

118. I was a Hillary fan for years -- until the Bush administration.

As recently as 2004, I was a great supporter and fan of Bill Clinton. There is no doubt he was a much better president that GWB.

But, my attitude has changed. The Bush administration's excesses heightened my awareness of the terrible effects that corruption are having at all levels of our society. Corruption is the most important issue for me. All the other problems we have as a nation can be met if we can get rid of or at least drastically reduce the corruption. And, as I look back, I can see that, although to a lesser extent, the Clinton administration harbored and protected corruption and was willing to compromise on human rights in order to protect corruption. Clinton does not represent change in so far as corruption is concerned. Nancy Pelosi has taken some action in this regard, but has taken impeachment off the table. And, it seems to me, that the corruption of the Bush administration cannot be remedied except through impeachment --- of both Bush and Cheney and also of Rice. Mind you, by impeachment, I mean the process of the House. Whether they would be convicted in the Senate is not so important. The important thing in my opinion is to get the facts about the corruption before the American people. And I do not think that Congress can overcome Bush's claims of privilege to get its subpoenas enforced unless it brings criminal charges. That is why I see impeachment proceedings as a necessity at this time.

The Clinton administration did not adequately protect our right to privacy. I was unaware of this at the time, but learned relatively recently from a German website that Clinton had requested that the European Union change its laws to allow eavesdropping on electronic communications way back in the late '90s. The excuse at that time was the need to protect copyrights. That was Clinton. That was pre-Bush. As we have seen, for whatever reason, Nancy Pelosi and Reid have been ineffective in Congress when it comes to protecting our rights to privacy under the American Constitution.

Also, the trade agreements that are causing Americans to be dependent on cheap, foreign labor, although begun under Reagan for the most part, were not curtailed or improved under Clinton to any significant extent. In fact, Clinton negotiated and entered horrendous trade agreements himself. Clinton does not represent change in so far as significantly changing our trade policy or improving America's ability to be economically independent. Pelosi and Reid again are ineffective. More blame is placed on Pelosi than on Reid because Democrats are less than a majority in the Senate. Pelosi, in contrast, has a sizable advantage over Republicans in the House, but has been incapable of marshaling her majority into voting for Democratic, liberal/progressive measures. The Republicans were able to achieve unity on major issues when they had the majority. Nancy Pelosi has been ineffective in that regard in the House.

With regard to the environment and energy independence, there again, Bill Clinton's administration did not do nearly enough. And I do not see that Hillary will change. Nancy Pelosi is doing nothing about this. She has enormous power but apparently refuses to wield it in favor of energy independence and adequate protection of the environment. We need drastic measures in those regards. I would like to see a parity between money spent on the War in Iraq and money spent on the environment and the development and subsidization of alternative energy sources. If we spent as much on clean energy and the environment as we do on war, we would be much safer. Hillary and Nancy are not not championing this kind of parity, and Hillary could withhold money for the Iraq War in exchange for equal money for the environment and energy independence.

So, my problems with Hillary and Nancy have nothing to do with the fact they are women and everything to do with their policies and their unwillingness to take strong stances on issues that matter to me.

In addition to everything else, Hillary's voice and laugh grate on my nerves. I have a great deal of musical training, and I hear emotion in voices. Hillary's voice and laugh betray her cynicism and her arrogance. I do not like the sound, not because she lacks a musical gift but because of what I hear about her in her voice. That is rather personal to me. I realize that others may disagree on this point, but I expect that many people who dislike Hillary and Nancy will agree with me on my other points. In contrast, I like Nancy's voice and her demeanor. I wish I also liked her performance as Majority leader in the House.

I am, by the way, a woman. I support Edwards, but also approve of and would support all the candidates except Hillary in the 2008 election. Hillary could still persuade me to support her, but she would have to stand stronger on corruption and the other issues that are so important to me.

[NaturalHigh]

120. How much criticism of Reid or Obama is sexist?

Do women just not like strong male leaders? How much of Hillary and Nancy's support is because they're women?

Hey, ask a stupid question...

[mmonk]

121. I'm not one to criticize Hillary that much (just some of her backers),

but I can asure you my criticism of Nancy has absolutely nothing to do with her sex. It has everything to do with the constitution and her role as Speaker of the House. Any insinuation otherwise is to not pay attention to the issues involved.

[Ariana Celeste]

123. Very little.

I'm sure a handful of posters have sexist tendencies, maybe some don't even realize it. But the majority? No way.

DU is full of, for the most part, liberals. The majority of active DU'ers are far to the left of Clinton and Pelosi. So a lot of criticism is to be expected.

I don't support Clinton. But it has nothing to do with her gender. I am a woman and I would *love* to see a female President. But she is far too centrist for me. I support Gravel first and Kucinich second, and it sure isn't their anatomy driving my support. They support my pet issues and I agree with them on nearly all of their views.

Give me a strong liberal woman and I'll push everyone I know to vote for her. HC may be strong, but she ain't all that liberal.


Honestly, I take more issue with the fact so many DU'ers refer to female politicians by their first names and males by their last names.

[Virginia Dare]

126. Why do your threads always have little flames next to them Zandor?

Mission Accomplished....:rofl:

[Forkboy]

127. How much of Zandor's criticism of Sheehan is sexist?

[SlowDownFast]

128. How many more flamebait threads (by the same poster) do we have to endure?

The answer, my friend, is blowin' in the wind....

[Forkboy]

129. All one has to do is claim to be a "moderate Democrat" and your ass is apparently covered here.

[lateo]

130. These sort of posts are becoming tedious.

How many of them do we really need?

[porphyrian]

131. Probably little or none. - n/t

[opihimoimoi]

132. Mostly by those who wish to divide the Dem Party and/or Hilliary..some are Pub Trolls

sent by the Pub Party

[uppityperson]

133. Why do you call them "Hillary and Nancy"? Sexism?

You are off ignore for now. Calling women (Ms. Clinton/Pelosi/Sheehan) by their first names while calling men (Mr. Gore, Edwards, Kucinich) by their last names is sexism also. So, pot, meet kettle. Interesting that you posted another flamey thing and get to learn about your own behavior, isn't it?