But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been.

Has he read anything at all that his own side has written about George W Bush, as a candidate or as a President?

I’d email the author of this tripe but, i don’t wanna waste my time on fools this Memorial Day.

On the whole, I think you are correct. Most women are touchy feely, avoid conflict and if they’re angry, are passive aggressive, not confrontational. I remember during the 2000 elections there was some poll or story that said most women thought ‘Al Gore would take better care’ of them. Er… okaaaaaaaay.

There are some of us though who call a spade a spade and like seeing enemies of America blown into so many bits as to need an electron microscope to reassemble the parts. This is why, as I intimated in a previous post, it has to be the RIGHT/BEST person. I think that on the whole most women fail that ‘test’, but there are women who don’t, and I would hope people would vote for her when she rears her head nationally.

One in a long line of missed opportunities for the GOP, unfortunately.

I was changing channels to watch Phoenix yesterday and Chris Wallace was hammering on a GOP House member for voting for the farm bill. Wallace said that many claim the GOP is damaged because of overspending, and why did the guy vote on the farm bill? Wasn’t the more of the same, especially since the President thought it was out of line?

The House member in essence said that it could have been worse and this bill – which apparently gives subsidies to farms making over 2 million a year – was better than what we had, and helped America’s farmers, blah blah. This is why we lose, because we’ve lost all perspective. They think they have an obligation to spend our money.

What a TOOL.

p.s. if they ever make one for MM, also because she’s tough, it would be a malkincracker.

p.p.s. Michelle O. doesn’t deserve one. She’s a loud-mouthed wussy, of little significance.

American men like to delude themselves….

… to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader …

Please…. paaaalllleeeeaaaasssseeee….

It’s all about the choice in women.

I’ll take a Margret Thatcher over a Hillary Clinton any day.

The only tenderness I felt was to the Kennedy family over the memory of RFK.
–maverick muse on May 25, 2008 at 12:23 PM

The Kennedy’s spent all the money in their sympathy-bank, a long time ago.

maverick muse on May 25, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Yes,

When the day comes, someone has to apologize for stating a fact, you KNOW there’s something wrong.

I agree.

She referenced her husband taking her frame of reference to CA Primaries during the month of June, and RFK came to mind. BIG DEAL to pussies.

It never hurts to apologize in case some one is offended, though. The only tenderness I felt was to the Kennedy family over the memory of RFK.

Obama’s offense proves just how big his head really is–full of self, full of BS. Whether he likes it or not, RFK is not about Obama. If assassination were such a verboten topic for Obama, then Obama has absolutely no basis at all for the referencing to MLK and “the dream”–Obama stealing the “dream” from MLK (a plagarist himself) overlaying his black Kenyan Muslim daddy on the memory of MLK. Cunning, not enough to sell it to me.

It is manipulative, because it asserts that if you want to be understood, both within the community and in the larger brotherhood of man, to be wholly without bias and prejudice, you must support Mrs. Clinton.

It is sissy. It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say “Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues…”

Tom Hank’s delivery as girls’ league baseball coach hits the home-run: CRYING? CRYING! There’s no crying in baseball!

Hillary got all the support she’s going to get already from all sorts of different population demographics. That she wants to take it to the convention is great for “DEMOCRACY”, but that’s as far as that goes. As a candidate, Hillary has given Americans all kinds of reasons to DENY HER A VOTE OF CONFIDENCE. Sex is the lamest excuse, just as racism for/against Obama is the lamest reason to determine one’s choice. Vote for/against the platform. If indeed sex or skin color is no reason to discriminate, then be consistent by denying that “argument” to determine one’s choice for POTUS. For argument’s sake, let either of those stupendously stunted reasons be THE REASON to elect a POTUS. So when that “historic” vote is over, now what? Down to business. Vote on the business at hand when you make your choice for POTUS!

Why is Hillary apologizing for her assassination remarks?

When the plain, hard, cold fact is, RFK WAS assassinated in June of 1962…And, points out the FACT, anything can happen between now and the Democratic convention.

Anyone, with balls, would be saying, “What’s your problem with that?”…They wouldn’t be apologizing…They wouldn’t be kowtowing to the idiot media, or anyone else.

So, is the New Statesman like the Onion?

reaganaut on May 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM

Readers of The New Statesman are generally so far up themselves that they have never seen the sun and, therefore, are unaware that it is the sole cause of climate change.

They also wouldn’t recognize a real woman if she jumped up and belted them with her handbag.

Wouldn’t voting for Barry Obama kinda be like voting for a girl? I think his wife Missy has bigger balls than he does…

Someone commented that there was too much hyperbole – that’s an understatement!

I think this guy needs to get out of DC, before he starts pretending to know what’s going on in America.

I looked through their comments and naturally saw (alleged, you can never tell on the internet) female posters agreeing with him and I know many female Hillary supporters feel this way. Hillary and her supporters have been trying to have things both ways though. She tries to play up the role of a mother when it suits her, a woman being picked on by the boys when it suits her, and so on.

When she is criticized for things that have nothing to do with her sex, she tries to change the subject and pretends that she is being unfairly picked on because she is a woman.

For this reason, I beleive the first woman we elect president will be a Republican, and I’d like to think the first minority president will also be Republican. The Democrats are (generally) way too concerned with labels and have to focus on distracting voters from real issues.

As a matter of fact, in all of American history there have only been 5 since they first were allowed to serve.

I just imagine, defining moments in American history…And, I imagine, that instead of being a male, a female were faced with making those decisions.

What would the outcome have been?

Then, it all becomes very clear, why womem wouldn’t make viable commanders-in-chief.

In the life and death struggle to exist, you have to have a cold, hard heart…You have to put your emotions on hold.

It’s the same reason, Liberal Drama Queens aren’t good presidential material.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio’s political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as “a fucking whore” by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Would Carl Bernstein (of Woodward and Bernstein fame) ever publicly declare his disgust about a male candidate’s “thick ankles”? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

Liberals are so lovely!

Let’s ask him to find out how many misogynistic comments were leveled at Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Liddy Dole, or Condi Rice — not that I actually think a man capable of such bizarre obtuseness would be affected by anything so disturbing as a contrary fact.

the same liberal suspects have said terrible things about all of those women, and I’m sure many of the slurs were the same kind of sexist crap that has been used against Hillary.

It would support his argument, not contradict it. Of course my conclusion would be that whackjob liberals are sexist, not the population of the US in general. He’s probably not quite ready to go there.