Facialexpressionsgate - it backfired. Drop it now so the race can still be open

[robbedvoter]

Offensive threads keep appearing here - so many - I decided to start one on the issues too. We are being called vacuous
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639282
and excitable
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2639447
I had voted against Hillary in the senate race, but yesterday, I could have voted for her. The difference between the Iowa women and the NH women was Facialexpressionsgate.
MSM wanted to create a scream story and trained its cameras and venom on her non-stop. The moment. The anger. The tears. Major news stories all.
They forgot that Hillary has been through stuff like this - and Bill's approval was at 70% during the impeachment.
The gender issue was irrelevant during Iowa. But was created by the unacceptable behavior. I guess it's up to you if this race is open (as I'd like it to be) - or it's sealed now.
And just so it's very clear - attacks on the candidate - on issues - do not create a gender issue. Only treating her as a "woman" as opposed to a senator - with a checkered record - does.

[SpongeBob]

1. Drop it? But it feels so good! Why - only last year, when my girlfriend dumped me

she had an expression just like Hillary at the debate...:shrug:

[robbedvoter]

2. Reminds me of the men angry about The Mighty Clenis because THEY couldn't get any...

[robbedvoter]

3. Adding the video of Rachel Maddow on the Tweety effect:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jsVM-ma9DM

[bigtree]

4. you're attack on my article is full of **it

I NEVER called ANY woman vacuous or excitable (or implied it in any way). The reference to 'excitable in the title is from the humorous, sarcastic treatment of the term from a suffragist in 1913. (which I provided at the end of the article.)