Get FREE BuzzFlash News Alerts

Email:  
Home

Except for Her Anatomical Features, Clinton is No Feminist. But George Wallace Would be Proud of Her Today.

Submitted by mark karlin on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 4:10pm.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG
by Mark Karlin
Editor and Publisher

May 8, 2008

Maybe we are naive, but we have always thought of progressivism -- in its ideal form -- as gender neutral. Men and women, people of all faiths and colors join together to promote the common good, peace and justice.

BuzzFlash has long championed the equality of people regardless of race, gender or religion.

So, as a male, it has taken me by surprise that so many avowed "Feminists" support Hillary Clinton merely because she has the anatomical features of a woman, when her policies and political style more closely mirror the more detestable side of "male" politics.

Does a true Feminist support "obliterating Iran"? Senator Clinton didn't even discuss the complexities behind the whole notion of Iran hypothetically attacking Israel, an ally with enough nuclear capability to "obliterate" the entire Middle East on its own. In short, wasn't it more Texas macho (think Bush and the Neo-Cons) for Clinton to offer her "obliterate" comment than reassuring Feminist diplomacy?

Wouldn't it have been the more Feminist thing to do to answer by saying, "As leader of the strongest nation on earth I would look at every effort to prevent such an occurrence and I think that can be done through diplomatic means. Look, we survived decades of the cold war without a nuclear attack because we were patient and diplomatic. I believe that we can do the same in the Middle East."

But, no, Hillary went Texan on us, and that's not Feminist.

In fact, Mary Matalin's uxorious husband, James Carville, boasted the other day that -- and we are not making this up -- if Hillary gave one of her three gonads to Barack Obama, they would each have two.

Now would a Feminist keep a high-testosterone male chauvinist clown like that on her staff?

Of course, wouldn't a Feminist have read the NIE before authorizing Bush to proceed with the Iraq War?

Wouldn't a Feminist have voted for the banning of cluster bombs in civilian areas, instead of for their continued use in populated communities, where they particularly kill children?

Wouldn't a Feminist be supporting MoveOn.org's anti-war work and party activists for peace instead of denouncing them as extemists?

Would a Feminist have stood by and said nothing during the slaughter in Rwanda?

Would a Feminist have sat back and let the Bush Administration run roughshod through our civil liberties?

Would a Feminist, today, May 8th, channel the ghost of George Wallace and openly run as the candidate of "white" people "who are hard-working" (as compared to those "other" non-white ones -- we are to assume -- who are not).

We can go on and on about Senator Clinton's "male" positions on domestic and foreign policy. Yes, she once worked for the Children's Defense Fund, before becoming a corporate lawyer who also defended rapists, before joining the Wal-Mart board which was crushing unions, before supporting a "welfare reform" program which was vigorously opposed by the Children's Defense Fund.

Progressives support positions that embetter our country, champion our Constitution, and promote the equality of all. It is not a gender issue.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote international reconciliation and dialogue (the assumed Feminist position). Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and basically be a war hawk who only came to claiming to want to end the Iraq War once she declared for president.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote racial healing. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and exacerbate the racial divide by re-opening the wound of racial division.

You can be a man, as Barack Obama is, and promote a politics that doesn't depend upon character assassination and guilt by association. Or you can be a woman, as Hillary Clinton is, and run a campaign out of the Karl Rove-Lee Atwater playbook.

Yes, women who have had it up to their necks with men who have ruled by entitlement are attracted to Hillary because she is a strong symbol of breaking through that glass ceiling, but only in so far as she has the same sexual equipment as those attracted to her; i.e., she happens to be a woman.

But if we did that old Madison Avenue commercial exercise of a "blind taste test" and you put Clinton's statements and strategy in this campaign down on index cards -- and you did the same for Obama -- and then asked people to pick who more embodies Feminist principles (without knowing the name or gender of each), we predict 90% of the Feminists would pick the statements and strategies of Barack Obama as being more Feminist and less testosterone driven.

Clarence Thomas is black; Joe Lieberman is Jewish; Hillary Clinton is a woman.

But no progressive black would support Clarence Thomas; no progressive Jew would support Joe Lieberman; and it is astonishing that any progressive Feminist would support Hillary Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is brilliant, feisty, indomitable and tenacious. But she is not a Feminist; she just happens to be a woman -- and she knows how to use that to her political advantage, but it doesn't mean that she embodies "Feminist" principles.

Certainly, blatantly pouring hot coals in America's festering racial history is not "Feminist." To be a Feminist is to nurture and to heal, not to render asunder a nation that is seeking to overcome its differences and divisive history.

Hillary Clinton has employed the basest of political tactics. She has betrayed the accomplishments and advancements of the Civil Rights movements to become the "Great White Hope" of 2008.

Is it because she wants to wound Obama to the point that he cannot win and then she presumes that she will be able to walk into the Democratic nomination in 2012?

We are not mind readers, so we don't know.

But we do know this. George Wallace would be proud of her.

BUZZFLASH EDITOR'S BLOG

Technorati Tags:Technorati Tags:

»

One party

Submitted by kshap1 on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 8:35am.
Your editorial is the most offensive work from someone supposedly on my side that I can remember seeing. You support Obama as I support Clinton. But I will support the nominee of my party against the nominee of the Rethugs, period. To demean Clinton by saying the only thing feminist about her is her anatomy is to insult every woman who has had to succeed in a man's world - and every human, period. We are on ONE SIDE, dammit! The enemy is the GOP.
»

Anatomy and Presidology

Submitted by usernamehere on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 12:58am.
You know something? You write like a guy who is trying to frame feminism from a guy's angle. It is found throughout your writing, here are some examples: 1. "Except for her anatomical parts...." Response: You mean the kind found in Playboy? So, as a 'feminist' you introduce women as breasts and vagina above all --then comment upon her other attributes? All meant as a left handed statement? 2. "So, as a male....." Response:'As a male' gives you the type of authority found no where else, so you must highlight the difference? Is this like 'as a social engineer' or 'as an expert on human behaviour'? As someone with different 'anatomical parts'? 3."it has taken me by surprise that so many avowed "Feminists" support Hillary Clinton merely because she has the anatomical features of a woman....." Response: Feminists in quotes? You do not believe them? Do you remember when Bush made that gaffe about Africa being a country, and not a continent made up of many countries? Here are some other facts about our world: not all feminists think alike. Not all Arabs think alike and not all Africans think alike. Sometimes these groups are so much not alike that they do not like each other. Are you qualifying your "as a male" statement that all feminists should hold your standards or else they become marginalized as 'the other'? What's up with your second reference to her anatomy? 4. "Does a true Feminist support....." Response: That depends on the feminist. Some do, some do not. It is all based upon ones own critical thinking. 5. "Wouldn't it have been the more Feminist thing to do to answer by saying....." Response: You do not know -- you should ask some representing a larger spectrum. 6. "But, no, Hillary went Texan on us, and that's not Feminist....." Response: Texan on us? What does that mean? That Ann Richards and Barbara Jordan were from New York? It is clear you are under the assumption that Texans are this and feminists are that. It is not a feminist nor patriarchal issue. It is one where you lose credibility with your readers based on unsupportable assertions. 7. "Now would a Feminist keep a high-testosterone male chauvinist clown like that on her staff?....." Response: The question could be: why should she not if she can handle it. She is strong and clever enough to do as she pleases. Making independent decisions is a trait found in strong males and females. 8. "wouldn't a Feminist have read the NIE....." Response: I called Clara Zetkin. She did not read it either. 9. "Wouldn't a Feminist be supporting....." Response: Yes, they all support some of the same ideals, but it has nothing to do with your article. 10. "Would a Feminist have stood by and said nothing....." Response: Are all feminists from the moon? Do they all take commands from the master cyllinder? Or is this one of those 'all women talk too much' jokes and you forgot the punchline? 11. "We can go on and on about Senator Clinton's "male" positions....." Response: You could, but your choice of words is in bad taste. You are a male, right? 12. "Barack Obama as being more Feminist and less testosterone driven....." Response: This is unsubstantiated unless you know his doctor. You are alluding yourself out of a persuasive argument. 13. "Hillary Clinton has employed the basest of political tactics....." Response: So have a number of people throughout history from all walks of life. There is no feminist rule that states there is one type of etiquette and protocol -- unless you wrote it and shared it with your chums. 14. "Is it because she wants to wound Obama to the point that he cannot win and then she presumes that she will be able to walk into the Democratic nomination in 2012?....." Response: Wound to the point as in castrate? To render the male impotent and non-essential? She walks into the nomination, proud, strong, erect. He limps. What a vivid, if not, warped, sense of what you think strong women do to men. Your heart may be in the right place, as an arbitrator between the sexes, but your head needs some adjustment on this issue. Unless you are cocksure of your argument, you may want to approach it -- more delicately.
»

Huh?

Submitted by Popozuda on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 7:22pm.
Don't jump on me jackass, we're on the same page. And don't assume you know me because of a sentence I wrote. Don't assume you know how I raise my kids ok? You prick!
»

Huh?

Submitted by banjobailey on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 8:16pm.
O.K., The Prick will not assume you raise your children to be tolerant of others. That's your own individual choice here in America. O.K. We don't need to fight about that, it's your family and your choice and not mine. O.K. To your point that "if Hillary had won fair and square you wouldn't have any problem with her", I totally agree. But, she LOST. She didn't WIN. Obama is going to be the nominee. There is simply NO QUESTION about it now. So, why, do you need to continue to re-live Hillary's failed campaign? Why do you still need to trash her? One more thing, Popozuda, I apologize if I have offended you, really. I have really, myself, only been trying to make one point: and that is, let us come together. Let us stop blaming, trashing, anyone. Including one another. Peace.
»

oops

Submitted by Popozuda on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 7:25pm.
my pissed off comment was to banjobaily below. Get a clue! I don't hate clinton as much as her supporters hate Obama. If she won fair and square I'd have no problem with her.
»

Gimme A Break!

Submitted by Popozuda on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 1:52pm.
The people who so vehemently support Clinton that they would not vote for Obama or try to scare everyone with images of McCain being sworn in etc. are not Democrats. Period. It's great that you really support her, I'm sure you are all white and hard working but the hatred towards her by Obama supporters was brought on by her. Everyone was ready to see this thing play out until the nastiness started. The MSM was very much pro-Hillary until she said that McCain was ready to be pres. but not Obama. That was the turning point. In fact most of the corporate media would still prefer Clinton. The republicans have always hated her and always will. Democrats were ready to support her if she won until she started with the kitchen sink. For all the accusations and finger pointing and threats that Obama needs Hillary supporters should'nt that be a given? Shouldn't the Dems rally around their winner. There seems to be an irrational amount of bitterness(wrong choice of words maybe) among Clinton supporters that echoes her tone of 'If I can't win, neither can he'. It's a really lame argument. Obama is not the antichrist, the Republicans are. Remember! And if she gets her way, if she knee-caps Obama enough and stirs doubt and fans racism and tacitly encourages her supporters to vote for McCain and through some travesty of all that is right with the world McCain is the president. Obama will beat her in 2012 too. So let's move on with things and beat McCain. Hillary is not the victim she is the loser. She put up a good fight(albeit dirty) and she lost. The people want new blood. The people want Obama. The republican party weaker than the media will have you know, let's get a taste of McCain blood and go in for the kill. Obama 08!!! For my kids and generations to come.
»

Gimme a Break

Submitted by banjobailey on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 7:06pm.
oops, "but the hatred towards her by Obama supporters was brought on by her". So, you are controlled by HER? She makes you do it? She is responsible for YOUR choices, YOUR thought, YOUR judgment, YOUR emotions? You can't help it, you just, rightly, have to hate her? Come on. You don't teach your children that, do you. No, you do not. You teach your children that when someone practices dirt against them, gossips, suggests that they are less of a human being because they are (pick your poison): black, female, young, curly haired, tall, short, ethnic, believes in God, or doesn't bellieve in God, etc., ad nauseum, well, you do not teach your children to hate that person. Hate the behaviour but not the person. Hillary's campaign tactics are utterly shocking to the un-intiated. But, to those of us who have been around awhile we recognize every single thing about it. She is practicing old time divisive politics wherein she speaks to every wedge group in each state. If polling determines that people in, let's say, West Virginia suggests that these people are vulnerable to a racist appeal, well, then, there you have it. It is horrible and it is old and it is hanging her and she will have to live with her loss. None of it is reason enough to practice the politics of hate against her. ESPECIALLY, since she has LOST. She cannot win. I ask you to rise above this. Obama truly does NOT practice the politics of dirt and division. Please represent him honorably. Do not put him in the position of publicly calling for respect for Senator Clinton and her supporters while all the time, under the radar, utterly disrespecting everything he stands for by humiliating and trashing someone who has already lost to him. You don't need to do it. He has won. Do him proud.
»

Attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Submitted by Walter Weidner on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:45am.
It is unfortunate that many see fit to insult others for their opinions. Right or wrong, people should be able to voice their opinion. If you don't agree, so be it. But, please use language which is to the point, factual and addressing the subject. It would seem that there are considerable race problems in America. White opposite black. Should it not be Democrats and Republicans? OK, I am coming to the point. The Clinton person - I deliberately do not call her "woman" is a cold blooded, calculated machine. She is not in the race for Government to "serve" but for her own egoistic plans. Any one who has studied the history of the Clintons for the last 30+ years should know that ambition to accomplish their goals was formost a personal objective. Obama has been hammered by the right wing media and round about way by his own (former) friends. It is obvious to me that he is not supposed to win the race for the presidency. Clinton is the favorite for the Republicans. If she would win, she would be merciless decimated. This would guarantee another 4 years of the same. Unless the citizens of the USA want to have the next 4 years the same, they better unite and forget about color!. WW.
»

Hillary is no feminist

Submitted by banjobailey on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:42am.
After reading this whole board, I'm finally getting the drift here: progressives want Hillary to be drummed out of the Democratic Party period. Aha! Well, that sure is going to unite the country and help us face our problems, isn't it.
»

He will lose the General Election !!

Submitted by Thomas M on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:07am.
He will lose the General Election, Thanks to his Supporters!! Mr. Obama could do more to rein in his anonymous campaign aides and other supporters who spend their days trashing Mrs. Clinton." That for me is the most important thing. It just never ceases to amaze me the vicious things Obama supporters keep posting online. They always show up here with the same hate. It is almost as if they have an online rapid response team. Obama needs to explain to his supporters, the Huffington Post, KOS, the entire MSNBC and his surrogates, most who appear on MSNBC that without the forty nine percent of people of people who voted for Clinton he stands no chance to win the presidency. Yet time after time all I ever see and hear from Obama folks is just raw hate. Right now I will not vote Obama. Not until I hear Mr Obama admonish his supporters to stop trashing Clinton and to stop appearing on such awful, smug shows like Countdown with Keith Olbermann and Hardball with Chris Matthew where most of the Clinton bashing takes place. The biggest problem facing Obama is simply most of us who have decided to cross over and vote McCain do not share most of the Rhetoric of Obama supporters. The fact that most of us will be perfectly happy to live under a McCain government, with a Democratic Senate & a Democratic Congress, should be a warning to Obama and his trashing talking team that the Clinton voters do have options other than Obama. Right now the Obama folks are convinced there is no way we Clinton voters will vote McCain. How naïve to think after months of Low class, self righteous evil bashing of Hillary & her supporters, there would not be a price to pay. There will be lots of tears come November and it will have nothing do with anything Hillary did or said, but everything to do with the trash talk by the Obama folks. Two words to describe them; Rude & Nasty!
»

UncleTom......Why Wait? You Can Have It All Today!

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 12:56am.

You wrote:

" The fact that most of us will be perfectly happy to live under a McCain government, with a Democratic Senate & a Democratic Congress, should be a warning to Obama and his trashing talking team that the Clinton voters do have options other than Obama...."

What are you waiting for? Go exercise 'em! How 'bout getting a headstart, and head on over to the Darkside NOW---so I don't have to worry about your cowardly, self-serving ASS---stabbing me in the back? Can you spell...L-I-E-B-E-R-M-A-N ??

You seem to think somebody actually CARES about you and your INSIPID little vote, take it, your hat, your coat....AND LEAVE! I'LL EVEN BUY YOU A BEER ON THE WAY OUT. You really think Obama CARES that you disapprove of his MSNBC appearances? Hell, if you leave here, I'LL ask 'em to stop appearing on there---myself.

YOU ARE THE EPITOME OF WHAT (AND WHO), I've been talking about on other posts--you come here (a PRO OBAMA site), as if invited; as if someone drug you flailing and screaming to your keyboard to come visit us here; and everyday, with the same estrogenic intensity levels of your precious role-model, Hillary---you cry and moan how you've been mistreated by us. Well you know what? Even a mentally-challenged, moronic kid will not go to the stove everyday and put his hand back in the flames----now what does that say about you?

Again, this is truly NOT about gloating, or premature revelry, because hell, Billary could STILL have him "fixed"--if all else fails; no, this is about YOUR cry-baby, over-sensitive--yet bullying, repetituous, passive/aggressive, coercion...NOTHING ELSE! Things didn't go your way, and you're still sobbing and vying for some sense of recognition, of noteworthiness, of value; by coming here crying to any who will listen to that sad refrain of "HILL WAS DONE WRONG"---well, Thomasina....just boo hoo hoo.

»

Flaming RedBaron

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 1:42pm.
Obama should do more to rein in his anonymous campaign aides and supporters who spend their days trashing Clinton, but he doesn't do that, and I see this thread produces more of the same. It's too bad that his supporters, who have spent months doing this, don't realize that they have damaged Obama's image among many, because the thinking is, how can they say they support a message of unity and hope, and then go on to trash Clinton in the most vile ways possible? This is what they are inspired to do? And Obama has done nothing to stop them. If this is the new definition of unity, just count me out. I will instead cast my vote for John McCain, after spending my voting life (since 1972) as a Democrat. Enough is enough............... Now flame away again Kamikaze!!!!!
»

....Has An Aversion To Liars !!

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 9:32am.

You wrote:

" the thinking is, how can they say they support a message of unity and hope, and then go on to trash Clinton in the most vile ways possible?"

That is a knife that cuts both ways. YOU can't spend your days and nights EITHER telling your disruptive tales of Obama did this, or Obama said that, and then use those same lies to imply a completely false narrative of Hillarys history; THEN act as if you are, somehow, "holier" then anybody else. You ACT as if you think YOU are spreading a message of "UNITY" and hope; How so? When all you imply with every post is the HIGHLY devisive screed of "I'm voting for McCain." YOU sir, are whats 'vile'. AND....

It makes you seem like the sanctimonious, pompous bigot that you really are.

»

Oh, B/c We Disagree w/YOUR Ad Hominem Attacks, Thomas M

Submitted by drprodny on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 8:36pm.
WE'RE going to lose the election for Obama?

What a weaselly hypocrite you are - no wonder you support Clinton.
»

drprodny

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 9:58am.
You said...."WE'RE going to lose the election for Obama?"" No drprodny.....YOU HAVE lost the election for Obama!!!
»

Thomas M, You're Pathetic

Submitted by drprodny on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 5:26pm.
You continue to hold out for Your Great White Female Hope - even when she proves herself to be a shrieking racist with negatives against HER that make Obama on his worst day look pure as the driven snow.

Apparently, Keith Olbermann meant you as well as McShame when he mockingly says, "Old Man Yells at Cloud...."
»

Yawn!

Submitted by Popozuda on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 1:57pm.
So some trash talking Obama supporters are gonna be responsible for sinking his whole campaign? You spend too much time in the blogosphere! Obama has brought in more than enough new blood to replace the likes of you!
»

Yawn! ZZZZZZZZZ

Submitted by Thomas M on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 10:06am.
Yes he has brought in new blood ...Too bad they are all like most of the Obama posters here.
»

It's rather funny that

Submitted by Puna Pundit on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:37pm.
It's rather funny that Hillary supporters are coming at Obama Supporters like they are instigators of everything ugly in this primary. Now that Queen Hillary is no longer the front runner-and appears to have one foot in the grave. Why are all you Hillary supporters blaming Obama supporters for the mess Hillary finds herself in? Wanna talk about nasty, lets look where it really started....in the Clinton campaign! I was a Clinton supporter for many a years. But let's face it. Hillary is no Bill Clinton! Nor does she have that teflon effect that Bill had during his years in the WH. If you'd ask anybody two years ago who'd be our next president. 95% of the people would respond Hillary Clinton. Because of all that nonsense. Hillary herself started to believe she was going to be the next president of this great country. But you have to ask yourself, do we truly need another Clinton or Bush in the WH? If Hillary would have one the nomination, it would have meant more of the same! She is controlled by lobbyist, plain and simple! Plus her tactics for this primary season were scandalous! Starting with her crying during one primary, to finding her 'southern accent', before North Carolina primary. Now if you Hillary supporters wanna be bitter whiners ,and vote for McCain, and sink our country into another four or eight years of GW Bush. That is your choice, but a foolish choice at that! B. Obama repesents change! Our country needs a new direction after 8 years of bumbling around with neocons calling the shots. Hillary Clinton has become to much of a "Hawk" in the Margret Thatcher mold, and her reccent comments really scare me to be quite honest. I realize her ego has taken a big shot. Should Obama offer her the VP nomination...I don't think so. Perhaps she would be better suited in Harry Reid's seat as head of the Senate Majority? But for the better of the country, she needs to stop this nonsense so the Democratic Party can prepare of Nov. Otherwise the "Old Fart" from Arizona could steal the election!!!(something that has happened during past two elections). Don't you wonder why the GOP wants to face Hillary in Nov. instead of Barack? Hillary is polarizing,and people would come out of the wood works to vote against her. On the other hand, Obama might just have that Reagan effect. Able to get a good portion of GOP memebers to cross sides for this election! In closing, the Clinton Campaign has been way more "dirty", than the Obama Campaign has even thought about! Then ask yourself. Does America really need another Clinton or Bush for four or 8 years?
»

Right on Again

Submitted by patcoghm on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:11am.
I was losing faith in the Democratic Party for the mean spirited message from the Obama people. Its interesting why they still bash Hillary with such hate and anger that I wonder if these supposed Obama supporters are really Rowe bloggers. This type of bashing, after Obama is the winner*, will not smooth over the water, but cause stronger waves. When you have someone down and then kick him, don't expect that person to like you, even if he's one of your own family members. That is what is unreal with the words used by these Hillary Haters. This meanness is not going the other way toward Obama, so way the hate. I think we are being pushed into this position by outsiders. That's the only reason for this continued hate campaign. Many Hillary supporters like Thomas M gives facts to question Obama. The Obama people use nasty names, not facts, as facts are not available to support their candidate.
»

Patco----you see what you want to see....

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 12:10am.

And remain blind to all the rest....you Hillary people are not the paragons of fair and righteous camaraderie.

Is it NOT a fact that TODAY, (5/9/08), Hillary is STILL campaigning? Is she not on this day STILL slashing and burning the party? Is she NOT on this day STILL spreading a racist message WITHIN THE PARTY? Is she NOT STILL trying to damage his credibility, as we speak? Is she NOT tendering up a false dialogue 'that whites won't vote for him"? Despite Iowa, Virginia, Colorado, Georgia, Alabama, etc.

It can't be argued by you all that Obama is "the clear winner"---when YOUR candidate won't herald (or support) him as such. You can't stand by and see her act out all the above, and say nothing about it, yet, defend her b/c the narrative you have of her is NOT WHAT WE SEE. To defend her mis-deeds--WILL CAUSE YOU TO BE CHALLENGED. What you see (read) coming from us (ME) is a vehement hatred for unprincipled tactics--to me, its not even about Hillary, IF, the campaigns were ran in reverse---you have my word--I would be TWICE as hard on Obama than Hillary, simply, because I expect MORE of him. Fortunately, he has remained so. Hillary? No, I'm sorry, I find her deeds despicable----for me, it goes all the way back to her Iraq vote. People I care for have died because of her self-serving avarice.

You need to understand what motivates some of us. I've played sports my entire life. I've been conditioned to respect the rules, and fair play, and teamwork. I'm ex-military (AF) and when you fly as a team, your very life depends on the character and commitment of your comrades. Those things are not easily forgotten and they remain with you for the remainder of your life. So Yes, I EXPECT people who aspire to the highest office to be BETTER than I; and when they are not---they get what I have to give, simple as that!

Addressing the so-called anti-family 'hate' spread here, for me, Go back; read old post of mine, I still like to research and exchange points of view on the MERITS of the candidates (when the spirit is right); But, what interferred with that was, there are 4 or 5 "suspects" on here who feel it is their appointed duty to attack anybody they feel like attacking----not debating, not critiqueing, not investigating, not respecting-----so I have made it my business to attack THEM. What you perceive as vitriol---is the battle royale with these clowns. Hillary is merely the vehicle. I try my best to run 'em off the thread; then maybe, we ALL can discuss pros and cons in relative harmony. I hope this helps your understanding a little.

So, to borrow a line from M. Corleone: "Its not personal, Sonny. Its just business...."

»

Red Baron, give us a break

Submitted by patcoghm on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 6:56pm.
I think you might be a shill for the other side, the extreme right wing. We all have lost because of the War, but we all lost because of what it did to the economy. We are brain dead and not smart enought to know it. Hillary had no mis deeds with the war. Blame the people who conceived the War of Choice and go after them. I wonder if your not a Republican spinning to agitate the Democrats into a split. Frankly that has been accomplished by Obama, not these blogs. The choice we put forward has the least experience of all the candidates from both sides. His accomplishments are not there. Its a pipe dream of words used by other great people from our past, so it really sounds good. This whole thing is a pissing contest between the Kennedy's and the Clinton's and everyone knows it. But if you must pick a junior Senator to face the biggest mess this contry has every had, send one without destructive baggage in his arms. That is the problem. Obama will be our choice by default, and we will lose no matter who we pick as the VP. But why am I talking to an agitator from the Republicans. I know many Democrats and Republicans and not one has this kind of hate that you and your spinners leave in your messages about Hillary. We have lost the chance for the White House but I pray we take the Congress so we can control the McCain / Bush ticket. That's right, BUSH again.
»

BUSTED!

Submitted by cagey on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:21am.
I was losing faith in the Democratic Party for the mean spirited message from the Clinton people. Its interesting why they still bash Obama with such hate and anger that I wonder if these supposed Clinton supporters are really Rowe (sic) bloggers.
»

Sic indead

Submitted by patcoghm on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:37am.
Yes this thing that we do is really sick..
»

sic

Submitted by cagey on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:47pm.
sic:a word sometimes inserted to indicate that the preceding word or phrase is reproduced exactly as in the original text...
»

Uh - maybe "sic/sick" was a funny...?

Submitted by drprodny on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 8:38pm.
Just a thought....
»

Clinton is "trashing" Clinton

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:58am.

Thomas M.
It is Clinton who is trashing herself. It's a very sad spectacle, disappointing many of
us. The more she talks and the longer she goes on the harder it is to think of voting
for her with any enthusiasm, should she prevail against very long odds and become the
Democratic nominee. Who brought up "sniper fire" in her Bosnia trip? Who said she'd "obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel? Who had an interview with her 1990's nemesis Richard Mellon Scaife? And who introduced Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers?? According to Robert Parrish of Consortium News these "talking points" and others were on the Clinton campaign's list of issues to introduce as necessary.

Where are the examples, the quotes of Obama people talking "hate"?

It was Clinton, speaking herself yesterday, who referred to "hard working white people"
who support her but won't support Obama. She didn't say "black people are not hard working"
or that working class whites and whites who havent' graduated from college will not vote for a black, but those are the obvious opinions by implication. If Obama made such provocative remarks the whole punditry would go bananas, even Keith Olbermann, to say nothing of the Fox News crowd Clinton has been cultivating.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

»

Colleen Clark

Submitted by Thomas M on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:43pm.
You've been on BuzzFlash for a long time Colleen, don't tell me you haven't seen this stuff!!! You said.....Where are the examples, the quotes of Obama people talking "hate"? I can't believe you said that!!! This is just one of many!!! Submitted by andyod on Thu, 05/08/2008 - 10:39pm. Of course she is no feminist. Hillary is a bitch;a witch and a female pimp or so I have gleaned from the supporters of Barack Obama who is a colored gentleman from Chicago and must confront this white trailer trash slut from where ever, in order to enter into his Kingdom. What a shame
»

Yo....Dimwit....

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:08pm.

You need to go back and read it again, genius. I'm no fan of that idiot Andyod--and he is NO fan of Obamas. BUT, in his post that day--he was being sarcastically facetious (or so he thinks). In his ham-fisted, heavy-handed, simple-minded manner, he was trying to imply that those were OUR typical comments of Hillary, not his own. But, as usual, you saw " Hillary is a bitch", and your low-watt brain went into vapor-lock, you couldn't see anything after that, but what you wanted to see----therein, lies the crux of your brainlessness.

He was in over his head by trying to express irony, satire, and sarcasm, all at one time; and apparently, you are as equally in over yours by trying to use HIS quote to frame YOUR lunacies. He's on YOUR side! You don't have the mental tensility of a rubber-band. So stop trying to juxtapose two thoughts at the same time----its beyond your brainless bandwidth.

BTW---you still owe Colleen a so-called "hate Hillary" comment---feel free to use one of mine.

»

Campaigns are not responsible for blogger nonsense

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 7:25pm.

Thomas M

I thought you and others were talking about what the Obama campaign was saying.
Silly me.

I feel free to take issue with what Clinton supporters are saying, but I wouldn't
dream of pinning their views or their words on her or her campaign..
When I've criticized her it's mostly what she or Bill Clinton themselves have said.
Bloggers, journalists, even other politicians speak for themselves. The officials on
a campaign staff and the candidate her/himself are responsible for the tone of the
campaign.

So I'm still waiting for chapter and verse about what Obama himself has said or his
official campaign - not Rev. Wright, not me, not andyod etc.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

»

You should re-read your quote

Submitted by episiarch on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 1:34pm.
It appears, to me, to be from a Hillary supporter who is pointing out bias in the language of Obama's supporters.
»

Maybe, I'll check

Submitted by Thomas M on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 2:00pm.
Maybe, I'll check
»

Right on to Thomas M

Submitted by Leslie DeVane on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:42am.
I am with you sir. I have read articles on this web site that have made my skin crawl with anger. The trash talk of Hillary and this particular piece today is just an example. I saw another post by Buzz Flash today asking when she will be campaigning in a sheet. This stuff is just ridiculous. He can win the lopsided majority of African American voters and the press doesn't question why they are voting for him but she gets the White vote and discusses that and it's all about racism. Everything her and Bill Clinton have done in the past shows they are not racists and they have a record to stand on. Obama is going to need this voting block to win plus the women's vote but he has dismissed us so much and is so sure that we will all fall in line no matter how much we are insulted and that is yet to me seen. Regarding Hillary's vote on the authorization bill in Iraq the one thing that Obama has never been called on is that he was not in the Senate to vote on that authorization and it is easy for him to say he has been against the war from the beginning because he came after the fact. If he had been there when the vote was taken you could count him in to have voted on it in the political atmosphere at the time and his vote would have been the same as Hillary's if he wanted a future in politics. I can say that with a certainty because of his race speech which was a politcal move to save his campaign. Hillary's vote did not send us to war Bush did. If you really want to punish everyone that voted for that authorization bill then you better vote out every incumbant Senator that voted yes and there would be quite a number of other Democrats on that list. Obama did vote for funding bills on the war and his vote was yes then. If he was so opposed to the war on principle why did he vote in favor of funding it. I would not have as a matter of principle if I was opposed to the war from the beginning as he has stated throughout the campaign.
»

I agree with Clemsy Diggs

Submitted by Colleen Clark on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:33am.

Clinton was in the Senate. She voted to give GWB a free hand to invade Iraq but 23 senators, including the Republican Lincoln Chafee of RI, voted nay. There's no reason to assume that Obama would have voted like Clinton and not like Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, Dick Durbin, both senators from HI, MD, MI, MN, RI VT etc. It has occurred to me just recently that Clinton may also have been voting to defend Bill Clinton's record of the sanctions against Iraq. Not as much was made of it in the 90's as should have been, but several hundred thousand infants and children died from malnutrition and lack of medicine. Saddam Hussein was a brute but he didn't deny food and medicine to Iraqis.

Re racism and the Clintons. Until recently they had close connections with many blacks from all walks of life. But they are the agents in this campaign who have made racial remarks that have astounded and offended many of us. People have a variety of takes on Bill Clinton's dismissal (that's how I heard it) of Obama's win in SC saying that Jessie Jackson had also done well there. To defend that remark by saying that it is true is beside the point. Then Hillary Clinton just yesterday saying, in effect, "hard-working" whites and whites who haven't graduated from college have voted for her, and won't (how does anyone know???) vote for Obama.

And just because Obama has attracted a higher percentage of white men's votes than of women's votes doesn't mean that "he has dismissed us and is so sure we will all fall in line no matter what." Anti-female and anti-black prejudice is out there, no doubt. But a man can prefer Obama and any white can prefer Clinton without being sexists or racists.
And as a woman supporting Obama I don't perceive that my support and vote are being taken for granted. Women who support Hillary Clinton mostly because she's a woman, just as blacks who support Obama mostly because he's black are substituting their own prejudices for smart thinking. The reason to support one candidate or the other is because, all things considered, you believe they're the better candidate for president.

Colleen Clark
Cambridge, MA

»

I don't agree!!!

Submitted by Thomas M on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:50pm.
A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.
»

See.....UncleTom..

Submitted by RedBaronSIU on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:35pm.

This is what I mean about you---there is NOTHING in Colleens post that is FACTUALLY wrong, so you go after her OPINIONS with the same ol'........

BTW, what?? you have this screed above on file somewhere? THIS is, at least, the 2nd or 3rd time I've seen it posted by you---IN THIS EXACT WORD FOR WORD FORMAT---what do you do ?---dissect it, and then redistribute it? No wonder its so boring (and barely legible)....you need to strive to become MORE ORIGINAL, less REDUNDANT, AND AGAIN, THROW AWAY THAT DAMN "FACTOID" OF YOURS----IT ONLY MAKES YOU LOOK STUPID....AND LAZY!

I've told you before, you need to invest more time in syntax, paragaraph construction, and learning how to CITE your idiotic claims....it would be a more wiser investment of your time----than YOU wasting OURS.

»

Oh, Thomas M - you really HAVE drunk the Clintonista Kool-Aid

Submitted by drprodny on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 8:39pm.
Just go away - you're beyond pathetic now.

»

You're right. The Clintons

Submitted by Clemsy Diggs on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:57am.

You're right. The Clintons aren't racists. They will, however, use race as a means to an end.

She voted for the damn war as a means to an end. "If I'd known then," she says. Nonsense. Everyone who posts here knew enough then without a staff. So did she.

She will always do and say what is politically expedient. That is so demonstrable at this point I can't believe anyone not worshipping the Three Monkeys could think otherwise.

hillary's vote on Iraq stands alone and has nothing to do with Obama. You can say he would have voted for it all you want. Doesn't matter. You can't negate a fact with a hypothetical. She did. That's all that matters and all that's needed for a true progressive to reject her.

This isn't about Obama.

»

you are so right, Hillary

Submitted by Puna Pundit on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 12:58pm.
you are so right, Hillary voted for the war! No matter how you spin it. It will always come out the same!!! Plus her comments the past few days about bombing Iran scares me too! I wonder if most Hillary supporters know about her evil temper? This lady borders on being an evil witch of sorts. Constantly yelling at Secret Service Agents,workers, etc,etc.. During the debates, did you ever notice the "stink eye" Hillary gave Obama? No, we don't need a lady nearing her midlife crisis running this country. Besides, Hillary was unable to get her own house in order with regard to the Bill-Monica fiasco. I would have had more respect for her as a leader if she would have packed up and left Bilbo! She was unable to pull Bill in before South Carolina primary, which cost her the "black vote". I was a big time Bill Clinton supporter during his presidency. But have lost all respect for the Clinton[s] after their run for the WH. Hillary tried her best to play the race card during the primaries, but if failed her!!! Now in a last ditch effort, she is trying to bully super delegates. Has she no shame? Oh I forgot, she's a Clinton!!!!
»

Bush started the WAR

Submitted by patcoghm on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:33am.
Stop bashing Hillary for a vote that everyone was lied to with facts and evidence made up in support the war. Stop splitting your own party and our common interest in the process of making your Obama look better then your Clinton candidate. Yes both are your candidates from this party of diverse members called the Democrats. Many in Congress voted the same way, but all were given bad intelligence. Everyone knows that NOW with facts, and most people who supported the war or the use of force, would also do it different today. So bash the people who caused this War, the Republicans and the Republican controlled House and Senate. The Democrats and Hillary where just their for the ride, as they had no strength to stop the war. Don't forget who controlled and wanted the war. It wasn't Hillary, it was BUSH so BASH BUSH.
»

Everyone who voted against

Submitted by Clemsy Diggs on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:45am.

Everyone who voted against it knew he lied. I knew, didn't you? The truth was certainly out there and if she's good enough to lead this country she knew, too.

I do resent being told to "stop splitting the party" by following my own instinct in this matter. I joined the Democratic Party before the 2004 election to help give it some backbone.

That effort failed, and all it will take for me to be independent again is to fill out the form.

I swear, some of the rhetoric Clinton supporters use remind me of Bush supporters.

"Shut up and support the party. Who cares what you think."

If that's what she's all about, I'm not interested.

»

Clemsy, I certainly knew

Submitted by drprodny on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 11:48pm.
I remember the slow-motion trainwreck that was the buildup to the Iraq War VERY well - including the voices of reason (like a number of retired Vietnam War generals, HARPER's Lewis Lapham, THE VILLAGE VOICE and some of the NY TIMES columnists - if not the paper's "official" tone) that pretty much predicted everything that went wrong years before it did. It didn't even take a military genius to know the Iraq War would be a long-term disaster - just a basic awareness of why the U.S. lost in Vietnam that didn't begin and end with "It was them Damn libburul hippies' fault! We were bigger - we coulda won! We COULDA!!!!"

NOTE TO DICK CHENEY: If you're going to start a war to show "everyone how it's DONE, dammit!", you should not take the advice of John Rambo - a mushmouthed fictional character written and played by an excessively 'roided fellow Vietnam draft-dodger.

Anyone w/a brain or a conscience knew the Iraq War was, at best, just a way for all those weakling right-wing (and DLC "Rethug Lite" type) men to get their dicks hard again after the emasculation of 9/11 - or more sinisterly, a way to crush the last vestiges of genuine progressivism and rape the Constitution of the United States of America..."for our own protection", of COURSE! What made it worse was how many people you thought had more sense grabbing their limp sacks and desperately waving their made-by-Chinese-political-slave-labor American flags while shrieking "ME, TOO, MISTER BUSH! GIMME SOME OF YOUR ALL-AMMURIKAN MANLY WAR ON TERRUH LEVITRA!!!"...and then calling me, and you, and all our fellow genuine progressive brothers and sisters who had opposed the war and its fallout from the beginning "cowards", "unAmerican" and "traitors".

So in this atmosphere, what is Hillary Rodham Clinton, Junior Democratic Leadership Committee Senator from New York and former First Lady, who despite being a Centrist by any reasonably measurable standard had to put up with being painted as a PsychoCommieBitchFeminaziDominatrixDykeWhoCan'tEVENKeepHerMan by the hysterical yapping dogs of the resurgent wingnut right for eight straight years, to do? It's clear the only balm that will salve the gouges dug into her soul by the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, Richard Mellon Scaife and all the other Ammurikan Nazi Water Carriers is to Show Them All by becoming...The First Woman President! It will even, I suspect, salve the deeper gouges left in her soul by her book-smart but horndog-stupid husband who's so incapable of keeping it in his pants that she had to endure years of ridicule - While He Was President of the United States, no less!

But as they say about the Lotto, You Gotta Be In It To Win It - and the Junior Senator from New York is a smart woman, who knows just how to shave enough points to eke out a victory, who knows who she has to gladhand and who she can safely ignore. So she makes a smart decision - by the standard of 2003 of when Bush's approval rating was well over seventy percent, and a short victorious war looks like Just the Bracer America Needs! Yeah, that whole Patriot Act thing she voted for, along with the Orwellian-sounding "Department of Homeland Security" (Georgie always DID have a tin ear for nuance, didn't he?), is starting to pinch the progressive base a bit - but hey, they'll stick by her, b/c Where Else Are They Gonna Go? And you just know, as with any gains women have made in the workplace, that you have to show the guys you got TWICE the set they do - or they'll have you making coffee while snickering about what color your bra is under your blouse. So...why not vote for A Short, Victorious War, and remind everyone that while You May Be a Woman, You've Got the Biggest Set of All, eh?

If Hillary Clinton had run for President in 2004, and used that formidable talent for crushing all opposition without mercy, she might have amazed everyone by unseating a second Bush President after one term, and be on her way to an unbeatable second term now. But she made another smart move - by the standards of 2004, and bided her time while consolidating support for a 2008 Presidential run. By 2006, it was clear that Bush's Short, Victorious War was a neverending quagmire that made Vietnam look like, well, a tie (in Kevin Kline's hilarious words) - and the economy was heading down the crapper, the country's infrastructure was collapsing under criminally incompetent Republican neglect, the atrocities committed in the name of a "War on Terror" by a bunch of fratboys playing soldier (or was it James Bond, or maybe Jack Bauer on 24?) appalled and enraged both progressive Americans and the rest of the world, and Bush's approval ratings were at near-historic lows, and getting lower daily. Just the time to Step Forward as a smart, capable woman who's shown she's got Balls the Size of Grapefruit, and save the United States, right? Hey, she probably wouldn't even have to run - she'd be Acclaimed Imperator by her loyal subjects, just like Julius Caesar!

Only problem with that is - she misjudged just how sick Americans are of the War on Terror, and the consequences of those bills she voted into law. None of that might have mattered if she'd just been running against the Usual Gang of Capitol Hill Idiots, b/c most of them had voted the same way she had, and for roughly the same reasons ("We're Liberals - we gotta prove our set's TWICE as big, or Middle Ammurika will think we're pansies!"). But in the end she wasn't - she was running against an incredibly well-spoken, blazingly idealistic young Black man who saw the "Freedom Fries" crowd and their anti-French/Muslim/anyone-not-lilywhite-Christian-American-Male prejudices - and raised them his openly Arabic name of Barak Hussein Obama. In other words, Hillary Rodham Clinton met her younger idealistic self - as a Black man, runnning against her for the Democratic nomination.

So you see, it's not that I don't "get" Hillary Clinton. I get her very well, thank you - and I can even sympathize with the compromises she's made to mold herself into a credible female Presidential candidate. What I can NOT forgive, and may NEVER forgive unless like Al Gore she performs some major Acts of Contrition, is how she's behaved after meeting Obama...and how she, and her supporters from Mark Penn down to the trolls on here like the increasingly-hysterical Thomas M and Yman, is still behaving, even when the only thing that behavior may accomplish is to toss the Presidency to an old Republican warmonger with serious anger management issues.
»

Sorry for the long post

Submitted by drprodny on Sat, 05/10/2008 - 12:40am.
I kind of got on a roll, and felt I should follow it to its logical conclusion - or quasi-logical, depending on whether you accept my premises or not. I also managed to somehow misspell Obama's first name - it's "Barack", not "Barak".... ::heh::

Ain't the Interwebs grand? ;)
»

Sorry for the long post

Submitted by Thomas M on Sun, 05/11/2008 - 8:51pm.
It's OK drprodny. If you don't really know somebody, it's easy to forget their name!!!!
»

Hillary: the best get out

Submitted by Clemsy Diggs on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:33am.

Hillary: the best get out the vote a Republican can hope for...

Duh.

Besides, Hillary couldn't care less about Buzzflash, Commondreams, Olbermann, Huffington, Kos and every other progressive website and organization. We are not her base.

We know it. She's not one of us and her DLC ideology demands she make sure everyone knows that.

Hey, Obama ain't one of us either, but at least he doesn't make a point of pissing us off.

»

yawn

Submitted by cagey on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:22am.
snore...zzzzzz
»

So You Say

Submitted by commonsense on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:18am.
Yawn
»

Hillary's race

Submitted by Celebrate_diversity on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 9:45am.
Hillary is running for 2012. This year's Dem nomination process has been decided already. With Bill looking and sounding worse and worse the last couple years since his heart bypass, HRC doesn't have 8 years to wait before trying again. She needs to damage Barack for the fall so that McCain will win the General Election. With McCain continuing "conservative" wild deficit spending policies, our economy will be in even worse shape in 4 years than it is right now, re-opening the way for HRC's next White House bid, which will continue from now right through the general election with barely a pause, right on into 2012. Her "race" right now is for 2012. Her willingness to invoke race as a criteria for electability is disheartening and destructive.
»

This Year's George Allen

Submitted by commonsense on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 10:08am.
"Celebrate_diversity," your comments are good as far as they go but they do not go far enough. All George Allen had to do to lose his Senate race was to call someone "Macaca." Hillary has far outdone him and yet she is not hooted off the stage. You can compare her to George Wallace or Strom Thurmond or whomever, but they weren't running as pseudo-progressives in the Democratic Party. Her supporters are not nostalgic for the 1990s - it's more the 1890s. Let's turn race and ethnic relations in this country back generations so that a particularly distasteful personality can find some gratification in that dysfunctional relationship known as Billary.
»

What the heck?!?!?!?!

Submitted by GwenP on Fri, 05/09/2008 - 9:40am.
Ok, let me make this clear from the start: I am not a big Clinton fan these days. In fact, she has lost my respect between some of her votes while in the senate and her campaign style these past months. HOWEVER, I take offense to the definition of what makes a "feminist" and what doesn't. Is a feminist suppose to be the "gentle person", unlike "males", and look for peace at every opportunity? Hey, that would be WONDERFUL, but I don't think that's a "feminist" trait, but a human trait. Why the heck should anyone be looking to go to war? Also, is it not feminist to be strong minded and opnionated? Perhaps some people feel that way, but I certainly don't. I think it's outragious that James Carville would have the nerve to comment on Hillary having "balls" simply because she doesn't tolerate crap from anyone - male or female - or actually agrees with "the other side". She may not have the best judgment when it comes to her policies, but a feminist she is. Let me give you MY defination of feminist: A feminist is someone - male or female - who believes that women deserve to have the same rights and opportunities as a man. This means that they can be whatever profession they choose as well as speak their minds the same way as any male. A feminist can be soft-spoken or a loud mouth, they can be a liberal or a conservative, they can be heterosexual or homosexual, they can be a stay-at-home mom or president of a company or of a country. A feminist values others and expects to be valued as well. A feminist realizes that just as there are many differences and simularities in males, the same applies to woman - and it's OK! I am a feminist and proud of it! Mark (Karlin) and James(Carville), you are NOT feminists and are examples of why women continue to struggle for the same recognition as men. By limiting your views of what a feminist is, you insult us all by thinking that women must fit a mold. Your comments are a disgrace.
»
123next ›last »