I don't get it ???????????????????

Anonymous
Well, I look at the bigger picture and vote for unity of the Democratic party.

The stakes are high!
jsteele
Site Admin Online
Anonymous wrote:It's really not about "women's issues" as defined by political parties. The offense I took is about the process. I am deeply offended by sexism I saw, and continue to see, within the Democratic party. Not their platform on abortion or equal pay, but their actions during the primary. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I'm sure I cannot explain it to you, but I wanted to throw in the distinction. And if you don't get it, perhaps a women's studies class could help??


You seem to be mixing two unrelated issues, both of which I agree with you about to an extent.

On the one hand, there is the question of process. I think that Hillary turned against the process primarily because she didn't strategize for it effectively and was therefore disadvantaged by it. Regardless of that and the fact that it ended up favoring my guy (primarily because he prepared for it better), I agree there is plenty of room for reform. I don't like the concept of super delegates. While there may be room for caucuses -- or not, I think we can all agree that many of rules surrounding them are way too complex. I still have no idea what the hell happened in Texas.

Second, there is the question of sexism within the party. I'd argue that's a societal and cultural problem that extends well beyond the Democratic party. The fact that even people posting in these forums may require a women's study course to "get it" suggests that the situation within the Democratic party is much, much better than society at large, but I accept that there is still room for improvement. However, I guarantee that within the Republican party, no class of any sort is required to "get" the sexism.

I think it would be a mistake to fixate on these problems and give up on the Democratic party as a result. That would be missing the big picture. It would also be a mistake to believe that you wouldn't find allies regarding these issues within the Obama camp.


Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:It's really not about "women's issues" as defined by political parties. The offense I took is about the process. I am deeply offended by sexism I saw, and continue to see, within the Democratic party. Not their platform on abortion or equal pay, but their actions during the primary. If you don't understand what I am talking about, I'm sure I cannot explain it to you, but I wanted to throw in the distinction. And if you don't get it, perhaps a women's studies class could help??


Isn't the sexism that women experience in society at large part of women's issues? As Jeff said, the sexism is not limited to the Democratic party.

By dividing the Democratic party, in effect you place a Republican in the White House - the same Republicans who appointed conservative Supreme Court justices who in turn voted against equal pay issues affecting a woman. Isn't this also sexism, categorized under the umbrella of women's issues? Putting your weight behind a group that will level the playing field for women will accomplish much more for "women's issues" than voting for McCain or writing in HRC. If Obama does not win this election, HRC may get another chance in 2012, but her political image may be tainted if votes for her (when she is not the candidate) take away from votes for Obama, the 2008 Democratic candidate. Imagine the tumult if Obama loses by a few hundred votes that went to HRC instead.
Anonymous
It hurts more to be violated by your family than by a stranger. Ever been raped or beaten by your husband? It's horrible. That's why our anger at Dems is so strong. They're supposed to be a feminist party, and are nearly 60% female! And anti-clinton men (Dean, Obama, Kennedy, etc) allied to defeat her despite the historic nature of her candidacy, really ignoring that fact, but reveling in the historic nature of his candidacy. Then, after she was defeated, and our passionately held dreams were crushed, they did, and have still done, nothing to ease the pain. No female VP pick, no statement on rampant media sexism (Dean issued a very weak one), no hallmark speech on gender. Obama has the power to ease our pain, and he hasn't done it, because he just doesn't get it.
Anonymous
The stakes are just too darn high. John McCain cannot be elected as a result of this division. We have to get past this.
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:The stakes are just too darn high. John McCain cannot be elected as a result of this division. We have to get past this.

While I am an Obama supporter, I'm wondering if it's productive to either make pleas to or bash Clinton supporters at this point. They are understandably hurt and I'm wondering if it doesn't play into the Republicans' hand to spend a lot of energy chasing after Clintonites. It's important to respect their decision-making process. Various Clinton supporters will decide as time moves on what it is right for them to do and we don't have much control over that. Maybe it's time to move forward and look outward.

I say this because I have an image in my mind of the Republicans' snickering and enjoying this struggle way too much. So I'm looking for the serenity to accept the things I cannot change and working on the things I can!
Anonymous
12:59 -- do you really think that all other contenders should have bowed out b/c of Sen. Clinton's gender?? That other politicians such as Kennedy or Dean should have endorsed her because of her "historic" candidacy?? (I guess you're less interested in the historic nature of Obama's candidacy, huh?) As a feminist, I'm offended at the notion that I should vote for a woman simply because she is a woman. Sure there was sexism in the media just as there was racism in the media (and deliberately stoked by the Clinton campaign). But that is not why Sen. Clinton lost - she lost because she ran a lousy campaign, squandered a massive lead and buckets of money, and generally failed to demonstrate to the majority of voters that she would be the best Democratic nominee. Your "passionately held dreams" may have been crushed, but so were all the supporters of the other candidates who lost. Alas, that's just the nature of competitive politics. It's time to grow up and get a grip. If you want to "ease your pain," don't look to someone to make a speech or give you a token female appointee. Instead, work to make sure that a candidate who supports women's issues is in the White House in 2009 (hint, it's not McCain) and work to support female candidates who can make a more competent run at the presidency next time.
Anonymous
BEAUTIFULLY stated, 16:28. Thank you.
Anonymous
I wasn't arguing she wouldn't have lost anyway. I was arguing that there has been an incredible insensitivisy to the historic nature of her campaign. Had Obama lost fair and square wouldn't we be reaching out like never before to African Americans? Ask yourself, what would Hillary have done if she had won? WOuld Hillary have an African American VP nominee? Can Obama supporters get behind asking Obama to do some positive outreach?
Anonymous

exactly PP-all these LIBERAL MEN don't get it


excuse me.......

Obama's wife gave up her career for him...that's what he expected...that's not an enlightened man in my opinion

his behavior through-out the primary demonstrated it....if HRC had said HALF the things regarding race that he said or implied re gender she would have been tarred in the press-




Anonymous
To all HRC suypporters that are reluctant to vote for Obama:

Please get over it and do the right thing. This is a critical moment in our country's history. We cannot afford to allow McCain to win this one. It will be far more tragic than HRC's loss of the nomination. Please don't let this happen to our country. If you honestly think that staying home and allowing McCain to win office, then fine. But I cannot imagine that any truly rational HRC supporters could believe that this would be the better of the two potential outcomes. While there were differences between HRC and Obama platforms, please don't be deluded that such differences matter more than the differences between Obama and McCain.

Please stop the finger-pointing, take HRC's lead, and support Obama.
Anonymous
I'm hoping Obama loses and Hillary wins in 2012. Am I alone???
Anonymous
Anonymous wrote:I'm hoping Obama loses and Hillary wins in 2012. Am I alone???


Yes. In fact, I think you are trolling.
Anonymous
I was upset that Hillary lost. While I would not have voted for McCain, I very well may not have left work early or dealt with fighting through traffic in the rain to vote for Obama. But now, with Palin as the pick, I will wait in line for hours if I have to to vote for Obama. Palin's selection is so insulting to women. It says that McCain thinks we will throw away women's issues, the economy, and everything that Hillary worked to improve just to vote for a woman. We are not stupid, mindless, sheep who will throw away our vote!!!
Anonymous
Again, here are my thoughts on the matter:

Choice for Hillary Supporters Never Clearer

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/leah-mcelrath-r...suppor_b_122547.html

Enjoy!
Forum Index » Political Discussion
Go to: