Kristol, who previously said "[w]hite women are a problem ... we all live with," is "appalled" by the "sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated"
SUMMARY: On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol, who previously declared that "[w]hite women are a problem ... we all live with that," stated of Sen. Hillary Clinton: "She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women."
On the June 29 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, while discussing a campaign event in which Sen. Hillary Clinton joined Sen. Barack Obama, panelist and New York Times columnist Bill Kristol stated: "I think Hillary Clinton was gracious. She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women."
As Media Matters for America documented, on the February 3 edition of Fox News Sunday, Kristol said the only people supporting Clinton's presidential campaign were "the Democratic establishment and white women." Kristol then asserted that "it would be crazy for the Democratic Party to follow an establishment that's led it to defeat year after year," and added, "White women are a problem, that's, you know -- we all live with that." After fellow panelist Brit Hume responded, "Bill, for the record, I like white women," Kristol said, "I know, I shouldn't have said that." Also, Media Matters documented that during Fox News' coverage of the New Hampshire primaries, Kristol attributed Clinton's victory in the Democratic primary to "the tears," saying, "She pretended to cry; the women liked it." Hume asked Kristol, "You think she pretended?" Kristol responded, "I do," to which Hume replied, "I don't." Kristol added, "The women were sorry for her, and she won."
From the June 29 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday:
CHRIS WALLACE (host): Bill, how important the Clintons, and will Bill Clinton stop sulking in his tent like Achilles and behave?
KRISTOL: Psychoanalyzing Bill Clinton is a tough role, a tough task. I think Hillary Clinton was gracious. She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women. And that's why McCain's going to put Sarah Palin, the governor of Alaska, on the ticket as vice president.
WALLACE: Is that your prediction?
KRISTOL: That's my -- I'm moving from [Louisiana Gov. Bobby] Jindal to Palin. I'm being even bolder. She's fantastic, yeah. You know, she was the point guard on the Alaska state championship high school basketball team in 1982. She could take Obama one-on-one on the court. Be fantastic.
Anyway, I do think -- I actually think Sarah Palin would be a great vice presidential pick, and it would be interesting to actually -- to have a woman on the Republican ticket after Hillary Clinton has come so close and failed on the Democratic side.
JUAN WILLIAMS (National Public Radio correspondent and Fox News contributor): Well, I think -- how about Colin Powell on the McCain ticket? Don't you think that would be a winner?
KRISTOL: No, no, no.
WILLIAMS: No?
KRISTOL: That's, again, misogynist thinking. You're not --
WILLIAMS: Misogynist thinking.
KRISTOL: I think you've got to go for the gold here with Sarah Palin.
And Kristol's predictions have always been right on the money.
There are no Democrats who participated in the Democratic Primaries, who are planning to "sit out" the general election, because of the outcome of those Primaries: nor are they considering voting for Mr. McCain, for the same reason... it's idiot logic that would think that... it's Republican liars who are having fun with idiots like you, leading you to believe that there are Democrats who participated in the Primaries, who are either going to "sit out" the general election, or vote for John McCain.
This guy kristol is like P.T. Barnum: he never runs out of idiots, who'll believe the things he says and keep his career afloat... he'll never go broke, as long as you're around.
You're a liar.
I'm not a spokes man... I said you're a liar. You don't speak for any Democrats, especially old white ones in PA or anywhere else.
You're a liar.
You must be joking around here. You can't possibly be this dense
Dem, is that you? Do you post as more than one person?
I wouldn't doubt it, not after the the split personality Dem has been showing us today.
Dem you are an incredibly bright guy but you're pulling a "Tommy" here. Of course there are at least a few Democrats who are saying they will sit this one out because HRC didn't get the nod from the party. I know two and one is my girlfriend. My response is to say, "Get use to saying President McCain."
As you can see later in this thread, he/she does it again. A rude argumentative style; broad blanket statements that aren't backed up by fact, and insults to those who disagree.
This new Dem only comes out during a Hillary discussion, like I said, it's an Achilles heel.
http://hcsfjm.com/
Dem, I think you owe ThompSteve an apology.
warning: some Wilford Brimley sounding man starts talking as soon as the page opens.
Totally.
Did someone else get a hold of DEM's computer? This doesn't sound right at all.
I personally know two long-time, blue-collar Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in the primary, and who have stated to me on numerous occasions that they will vote for McCain in November.
I talk to them all the time, and they regularly knock me for being an Obama supporter.
They're my in-laws!
They're my in-laws!
Well whoever wins, and that president messes up...and they will...I can only imagine the "I told you so" evening at the dinner table.
So I guess that Ann Coulter will not be voting for McCain. Does that mean she will vote for Obama? Strange bedfellows does politics make.
Who believes this crap? The Republans are "hoping" that this nonsense is true. I agree, that some Clinton supporters will stay angry, be it man or woman, and say they will vote for McCain. That being the case, they are no longer Clinton supporters. They will be Democrats who cast their vote for someone who doesn't represent the values and ideals. Fine, everyone has a right to vote.
Does anyone ever mention the cons who must vote for Obama or sit out?? Don't hear too much of that...why, because Republans stick together no matter what their candidate thinks, says or does. Look at the backing that Bush gets....all 28%....that should be enough to beat Obama and the Democratic Machine. Landslide, landslide, landslide.
"Did someone else get a hold of DEM's computer? This doesn't sound right at all."
Actually, it sounds completely true to form for most liberals, including and highlighting dem.
And this would be true to form for most conservatives, including and highlighting you, dr. phil...
a Southern Baptist scholar – argued that one reason that men abuse their wives is because women rebel against their husband’s God-given authority:
Apparently...this woman doesn't exist in DEM's universe.
Granted, she's a nut. And she's part of a fringe minority of rabid Clinton supporters who have whipped themselves up into a frenzy over their own gross misunderstanding of the Primary results.
And Fox News LOVES her.
But she and her ilk do exist. It's silly to claim otherwise, DEM. I admire your passion, and I think I see at least part of your point (that the conservative media is overplaying these folk's influence on the Democratic party), but if you're going to emphatically claim that they're NOT out there...that's just dumb.
I see your angle and say goodbye to them, go be a Republican if they want more imperialism.
McCain wants to continue to occupy Iraq and keep the war crimes going, tempting policy for some so-called Democrats I guess.
Anyway, the tiny amount of Hillary supporters that, let's just say, may or may not vote for Obama, are insignificant compared to the wide swaths of evangelicals that are leaving the Republican Party for the Democratic Party.
http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdate&BarnaUpdateID=291
"Born Again Voting Pattern
In 1992, born again voters sided with Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush over Democratic challenger Bill Clinton by a 39% to 35% margin. In the 1996 election, born again voters again sided with the Republican candidate (Bob Dole) rather than the incumbent Democratic President Bill Clinton by a 49% to 43% margin. In the 2000 election, the born again constituency gave Republican nominee George W. Bush a resounding 57% to 42% margin over Democratic challenger Al Gore. In 2004, the born again segment again sided with George W. Bush, giving him a lopsided 62% to 38% preference over Democratic hopeful John Kerry.
In the past couple of elections, the born again vote represented about half of the total number of votes cast in the U.S. Given the razor thin margin of victory achieved by President Bush in 2000, and the close tally in 2004, the born again vote was vital in both of the Bush victories.
Born Again Voters in the 2008 Election
Compared to recent presidential elections, the current leanings of the born again constituency have reversed. The new Barna study shows that if the election were to be held today, 40% of all born again adults who are likely to vote in November would choose the Democratic candidate and just 29% would choose the Republican candidate. The remaining 28% are currently not sure whom they would choose, preferring to make their selection on the basis of the candidate than strictly on the basis of his or her party affiliation.
George Barna, whose firm conducted the national survey, indicated that Republicans have an uphill climb with the born again voters. "Given the large percentage of undecided voters, it is possible that the Republican candidate might eventually win a majority of the born again vote," he explained. "However, it will not be easy to win them over. Several factors are operating against the Republican’s prospects in this election, related to both social issues and the personal integrity of several of the candidates."
If the election were held today, and all of the remaining candidates from both parties were on the ballot, the frontrunners among born again voters would be Hillary Clinton (favored by 20% of born again likely voters), Barack Obama (18%) and Mike Huckabee (12%). No other candidate reached double figures. Thirty percent of the born again likely voters said they were still undecided as to who they would choose."
hey douchebag, I do know democrats who are long-time Clinton supporters, and they're terribly unhappy about the way things panned out. They're far less than receptive with Obama as their candidate, and have indicated to me that they won't vote.
I don't think these people were/are true Democrats because their thinking is illogical.
I don't know how you define "true democrats" but I'll definitely give you that their being illogical. One person I know is a woman in her late 70s, and has been active in democratic politics her entire life. . . . She has a huge picture sitting in her living room from the time that Carter visited her home in the 1970s. During the primaries, I thought that she lost her marbles as well. As late as April, she would have bet me that Clinton still would have been the nominee.
I'm not saying that it's logical at all.
Judging from your previous posts, you're so far to the right you wouldn't know the "far left" if it beat you over the head with a copy of the Constitution.
I agree. I was a strong Hillary supporter. I believe she had the right ideas, but kinda made a fool of herself, what with her gaffes and all. That being said, I'm going to vote for Obama in November. One of the reasons I'm voting for Obama is that both Obama and Hillary agree on 95% of the issues. They're both excellent candidates and both can do a great deal to help our country recover from the disaster foisted upon us by the greedy, bloodlustful, criminally insane Bush administration.
But that's not the biggest reason. My main reason for voting for Obama is to do my part to ensure that the jerk John McCain stays as far away from the White House as possible. He is unstable, and I disagree with him on almost every issue. He would continue to take the country in the wrong direction. Can our nation take much more of the policies we've seen over the past seven years? We're already close to the breaking point, what with a crappy economy, soldiers dying for oil and money, an administration which craps all over the Constitution, etc.
Hillary voters who cast their vote for McCain because they're pissed that Hillary didn't get the nomination are selfish, whining, cry babies who would rather see us continue down the wrong path just based on their anger.
I am truly disappointed that Hillary won't be the Democratic candidate. However, I do like Obama - and my dream ticket would have been Clinton/Obama. But this is about more than just what I want. I cannot be angry because Hillary didn't make it. Such anger comes from the fact that more people supported Obama than Hillary - and such anger is really directed toward your fellow citizens who voted Democratic, just not for your candidate. If you're a Democrat and you vote for McCain out of your anger, then you're not thinking of the needs of your fellow citizens; you're being selfish and vindictive - two traits I absolutely abhor.
Although I agree that the worst thing anyone can do is vote for a candidate out of vindictiveness (which of course becomes a vote against the rival), you, along with many Obama supporters, seem to imply that every Hillary supporter who doesn't blindly fall in line behind Obama is doing so out of anger. How about those people who don't support Obama simply because they don't think he'll make a good president? I am one. I don't dislike Obama, but I think it takes more than an arsenal of bumper sticker slogans to make someone an effective candidate. Furthermore, I believe that his "change" message is hogwash. His denunciation of Clark's statement (which was turned into a controversy by our "great" media) shows a lack of character. He is willing to throw a fellow Dem under the bus to remain unscathed. Far removed from politics as usual...yeah, right.
However, since I do not agree with anything John McCain has to say, I only have two choices: research a third party candidate or sit this one out. If that makes me a DINO or selfish, or vindictive so be it. I have the silly notion to vote for someone I believe in, not just for someone simply because he is running as a Democrat. Essentially, questioning the integrity, political affiliation, motivation, and emotional/mental equilibrium of Hillary supporters who don't vote for Obama does not make the latter's sycophants any better.
You're right. Your vote is your vote - and I respect that. However, I'm willing to wager that you're not happy with the status quo. IMHO, sitting this one out, or voting against your own self interests (by voting for McCain) - and the interests of your fellow citizens, is indeed selfish.
Science,
What political philosophies do McCain and Hillary share that Hillary and Obama don't? Seems to me that any Hillary supporter who votes for McCain isn't doing it for issue reasons.
In all honesty, I didnt pay much attention to the issue related differences between the two. Obviously, I lean the other way. But I'm sure, that to at least a few voters, experience (length of service in Washington) could lead them to McCain from Hillary.
I don't speak for the voters as to why they switched sides. I'm just pointing out that for someone to say "you're not a true democrat if you dont vote Obama" is like saying "youre not a true American because you don't buy GM/Ford". It nonsense.
Well,
There are few, if any major, philosophy differences between Hillary and Obama. If you can find some significant ones, post them. Those who supported Hillary for more than experience reasons have no reason to vote for McCain.
If you find one thing, other than experience, that McCain and Hillary have in common (thinking philosophy here), post it.
Hey like I said - I wasn't making comment to say why they switched. Being a republican myself, me trying to read into the mind of a democrat would be hard enough :-)
I'm just simply pointing out that they are out there, I'm sure they consider themselves Democrats by issues (or at least a majority of them), and there is obviously something there to make them not vote Obama. What it is, I wouldn't know.
It's to punish the Democratic Party. It's whining - you know, what you guys on your side do oh so well.
It's disgusting. Grow the hell up.
Pardon me. My phrase should have read:
THEY NEED to grow the hell up.
In truth, there really are not any big differences between Clinon, Obama, AND McCain. None of the three are for adopting single payer national health insurance, cutting the huge, bloated, wasteful military budget, reversing U.S. policy in the Middle East, or impeaching Bush/Cheney.
Gov,
Their criteria for picking judicial nominees couldn't be more different. They also have different ideas on the GI Bill, different tax plans, different oil plans, different stances on gay marriage, etc.
Correction - they are no far left liberal.
They could very well be far left liberals.
They're far less than receptive with Obama as their candidate, and have indicated to me that they won't vote.
Check back with them in November... I doubt very seriosly if many Clinton Democrats will sit the election out or vote for John McCain. The issue of abortion rights alone will drive the pro-Clinton women voters to Obama.
It would no more surprising than the statistic of Obama w/ 90% of the black vote. People will vote for someone for all sorts of reason, and sometimes not on the issues. It could happen to be just for the sake of someone they "relate" with, whether it be because of a female on the ticket, or a black candidate on the ticket.
To try and analyze why everyone does things in this world not for the "logical" reasons, would take you a life time.
People will vote for someone for all sorts of reason, and sometimes not on the issues.
Very true.
I doubt she spews hate to make money. Im fairly positive that she makes money off being herself, which happens to be spewing hate.
For cryin's out loud, Kristol. Do you really think that the suffragists were conservative, preserve the traditional way thinkers? They were liberal, they were progressive challengers of the conservative status quo, their feminist intellectual progeny are liberals too.
Don't even try it, Bill. Liberals will always stand for equality.
Did anybody see the Unity Speech given by Clinton and Obama? It was on Youtube: http://youtube.com/watch?v=feKBaxLjExE
I'm with Dem02020. I don't really think HRC supporters are going to vote for McCain or sit this one out, despite their dissatisfaction with the way HRC was treated in the press. I'll allow that I could be wrong but I'd be willing to put a wager on it. I think things will crystallize for them the longer they see the two of them working together.
In any case, Kristol is wrong again. As usual he's dissembling for all he's worth. This was a historic primary especially for women and AAs. We rallied people to register and vote in record numbers. That in of itself is an accomplishment.
I know it's merely anecdotal, but it's true. It puts the lie to Dems broad declarative, "There are no Democrats who participated in the Democratic Primaries, who are planning to "sit out" the general election, because of the outcome of those Primaries: nor are they considering voting for Mr. McCain...'
Well, there are no absolute definitives, I will agree.
How about this: Anybody who was a Hillary supporter that will sit out or vote for John McCain are stupid beyond comprehension.
I hope that will be very few. Or maybe I should be kinder and attempt to bring them around. Is there anybody on this board who would sit out or vote for John McCain? Maybe that Rojo who wasn't a regular poster. I'm still guessing that most will do the correct thing.
Yep, that works for me. And farewell to them.
I can see Dem's point, too.
It's classic Repiglican tactics to exploit these differences.
Divide and conquer.
But to insist that the differences don't exist, while laudible in it's principle, is avoiding the healing process that needs to occur, as you say, for the greater good of the country.
It's political strategy, and the power of suggestion: if you suggest to people that former Clinton supporters are going to "sit out" the general election, or are going to vote for John McCain, then there might be some number of weak-minded people (people easily manipulated by the power of suggestion), who might say "gee, maybe I will too: maybe I'll sit out the general election, or vote for John McCain"
It's a political tactic being employed presently: it's behind more than a few of MMFA's citations: it suggests something that is untrue, and they want their suggestions to have some effect...
It only works on weak-minded people though: The Power of Suggestion.
It's a lie. It's not only a lie, but it's illogical (that folks motivated enough to participate in the Democratic Primaries, would then "sit out" the general election, or vote for John McCain, because they didn't like the outcome of those Primaries), it doesn't even make sense... only dopes would believe it, and echo it... dopes and liars too.
But it's not a lie, I'm not a liar and I'm no dope. I know two Hillary supporters who despise Obama enough to vote for McCain.
I know that they represent a tiny minority opinion. But they are real.
It's political strategy, and the power of suggestion: if you suggest to people that former Clinton supporters are going to "sit out" the general election, or are going to vote for John McCain, then there might be some number of weak-minded people (people easily manipulated by the power of suggestion), who might say "gee, maybe I will too: maybe I'll sit out the general election, or vote for John McCain"
That's a brilliant theory . . . Except the die-hard Clinton supporters of whom I spoke are hardly influenced by what the likes of Kristol say. Get it through your thick skull that you don't have the power to divine the motivations of all voters in the democratic party.
It's a lie, and it's told for the benefit of bill kristol and those like him: why else would he have said it?
It's a lie told to idiots, for them to believe it and repeat it: why else are you repeating it?
Dude, I'm sorry, but your comments on this thread reveal you to be far dumber than any democratic voter that will sit out this election cycle because the clinton's lost.
If they sit out, they weren't really Democrats anyway. Go riddance to them.
I don't say that I know "every Clinton supporter in every State": I said you're a liar... there are no former Clinton supporters going to vote for John McCain, or going to "sit out" the general election, because they don't like the way the Democratic Primaries turned out... you're a liar for saying that: you and bill kristol, you're both liars.
Your only other defense is that you're weak-minded and stupid for merely believing the lie: it's your choice, plead to the lesser charge if you want... but it's a lie either way.
there are no former Clinton supporters going to vote for John McCain
I'm sorry, DEM. But that's patently false.
There are a few (not a majority, mind you) Clinton supporters who are, in fact, so upset that Clinton lost the primary that they have fabricated all kinds of reasons to hate Obama. And, if we are to hold them to their word, they will vote for McCain come November.
However, like LOONZ, I view these people as an angry, irrational fringe group with little or no bearing on the outcome of the election. Good riddance, I say; let them cut off their noses to spite their faces.
If you want to argue that last point, and the fact that Fox News delights in over-emphasizing these nuts' influence, then I'm right there with you. But to state so unequivocally that they "do not exist" is simply incorrect.
Put simply:
You don't even know what you're doing, or saying, do you?
You posted a YouTube link (that I didn't click, but will take your word for it what it shows), and in the same breath you say it's the kind of stuff Fox loves: didn't you hesitate at all, in posting an anti-Obama YouTube video link?
And above, you refer to some number of Clinton supporters this way...
"I view these people as an angry, irrational fringe group with little or no bearing on the outcome of the election. Good riddance, I say; let them cut off their noses to spite their faces"
You don't even know what you're doing or saying: you do realize, that if any of Sen. Obama's campaign people publicly said what you wrote, they'd be asked to resign... you know that, don't you?
You provide links to anti-Obama YouTube videos: are you soft in the head?
You say hateful things about Clinton supporters (who Mr. Obama needs), as though you would prove that they were alienated from Mr. Obama, by saying things to do just that, to alienate them!
You must be soft in the head: you'd be fired by the Obama campaign, if you worked for them, and did idiot stuff like
You post anti-Obama videos
and repeat what "Fox loves"
and insult Democrats that Mr. Obama wants and needs to support him in November.
The Senator's campaign doesn't need the stupid things being said by you and others on this thread... you do notice how you're in agreement with this science hack and this steve.thomp jerk, and bill kristol too, that there are Democrats who are going to "sit out" the general election, or vote for McCain, because they don't like Sen. Obama: you do know you're saying that, right?
Me, I know exactly what I'm doing, and exactly what I'm saying, and I know why I'm saying it too: Mr. Obama would like to hear what I'm saying: NO Democrats are planning to "sit out" the general election, or vote for John McCain, because they don't like him...
Why don't you dispute that, again... why don't you prove again how soft in the head you are, and that you don't know what you're doing or saying, by saying again what it is that would actually get you kicked off team Obama (if you're even on it).
Do you realize how stupid and moronic are these reactionary and reflexive idiots, whose posts I've been reading, that agree with bill kristol (and with this steve.thomp jerk who was the one I first weighed in against), they agree with them all and repeat a Republican Talking Point, just so that they can disagree with me?
With idiots like that, no wonder Republicans do so well in this game.
Again, were any person in the Obama campaign to slander Clinton supporters like some of these morons have been doing, they be FIRED ON THE SPOT...
They post an anti-Obama YouTube video link here... they insult Clinton supporters (who Sen. Obama needs): what are they doing, Fox's work for them?
I'll say it again, just to see if any of these idiots want to keep saying things that would get them fired from the Obama campaign... me, what I say is what Sen. Obama wants said, again and again and again: so I'll say it again:
There are NO Democrats who, because they dislike Mr. Obama, are "sitting out" the general election, or voting for McCain... NONE!
Now go ahead you idiots... repeat and argue for the Republican Talking Point... do Fox's work for them.
Get yourself kicked off Team Obama.
There are NO Democrats who, because they dislike Mr. Obama, are "sitting out" the general election, or voting for McCain... NONE!
I am an Obama supporter. I've donated money to his campaign, and went to see him speak when he came near my home.
And I'm damn well telling you that you are incorrect. What you are saying is false, and I don't know why you continue to repeat it.
Deez, I love you...
But Dem is absolutely correct. THERE ARE NO (0) (none) CLINTON SUPPORTERS WHO ARE SUPPORTING OBAMA. This whole game of "Clinton supporters who will vote for McCain" is corporate media BULLSH*T.
Don't you see what Dem is talking about? He's talking about spin, he's talking about framing. He's talking about American media FILTH.
Those YouTube videos are not inherently anti-Obama. One is a clip of Harriet Christian, a rabid Clinton supporter who screamed and yelled at a committee meeting about how much she hated Obama and nonsense about the DNC making a huge mistake or whatever.
The second clip was from Neil Cavuto, who had her on the show and gave her a huge platform on which to spew her silliness. I posted that link to prove that Fox News is using this woman to further their own anti-Obama agenda.
Regardless, I posted them because they prove you wrong. I seriously doubt I've done the Obama campaign any damage in the process.
You haven't. DEM is doing a "let's make the message the reality" thing. That's what he/she feels will be the best thing for the Democrats to heal any divide that has occured over the last few months.
"There is NO DIVIDE." Kind of like from the Matrix. "There is NO SPOON."
However, he/she is also extremely rude and arrogant, and proving him/herself to be quite an ass. Nothing can really be helped there.
If many people know someone who is angry about HRC not getting the nomination that may not be an insignificant number. It might be wise to realize that some are threatening to sit out or vote for Mr, McCain. We need to change their minds. It is up to those of us that support Obama to start trying to bring them back. We need a united party.
Other than that, Mr Krystol seems to have lost some bearings.
there are Democrats who are going to "sit out" the general election, or vote for McCain, because they don't like Sen. Obama: you do know you're saying that, right?
Yes. I'm saying exactly that because it's verifiably true.
You're blithely ignoring facts and I'M the one that's soft in the head?
Who ARE you? You are not the DEM we have known on MMFA. This nonsense about if I worked for the Obama campaign I'd be fired...?
How is that remotely relevant? Sure, it doesn't exactly help the Obama campaign for people to know that there are Clinton supporters who are voting for McCain. I don't live and breathe to help Obama win, especially at the expense of the truth. I would rather Obama lose than lie for him.
Why are you picking a fight here? In case you haven't noticed, you're the one saying things that are false.
Deez,
Sometimes objectivity is a liberal disease.
Science,
I've seen some of your posts. You have no business even commenting on what DEM says.
You're a hack, a shill, probably a paid poster from one of the dirty rich conservative foundations.
Back to the original article about W. Kristol: I hope we can all agree that he is wrong most of the time, and it remains a wonder of modern media idiocy that he still pontificates. He obviously would not measure up to any strong woman of any type.
I wish that he could be set adrift in a little boat with Karl Rove, and they could paddle about taking turns lecturing each other and paddling.
Another case of some righty pundit rewriting history. They are the ones who smeared Hillary the most. Then they project it onto someone else to prop up some righty talking point BS.
And tell me, why did us white women (who live in the suburbs with our low hanging fruit :-) become such a hot commodity all of a sudden?
I wouldn't know too much real facts about them by listening to Wm. azzhole kristol.
I agree he's sub-human :-0
But I live in north Texas, north of Dallas. Denton county with some beautiful horse ranches.
I could spend the next 20 years traveling Texas and not run out of neat, special, beautiful places to visit. Big Bend national park, the mssion towns, the coast near Corpus where there is some of the best bird watching in the world (we have whooping cranes). Texas is a very surprising state.
Hey, maybe I should work for the visitors bureau :-0)
I wish that he could be set adrift in a little boat with Karl Rove, and they could paddle about taking turns lecturing each other and paddling.
Sharks in the water pleaseeeee!
I wish that he could be set adrift in a little boat with Karl Rove, and they could paddle about taking turns lecturing each other and paddling.
plus neither would be able to paddle on the left side, so they'd just keep making clockwise circles.
The media have been beating the personality drum unceasingly. Ignore policy! Ignore what they're going to do to this country and our lives! Horserace horserace horserace!
Do I know of any women who are saying "Darn! Thwarted in our chance to get the first woman President! Guess I'll vote for the anti-abortion Republican!" I do not. Do I know any Hillary supporters who say, "I admire Hillary for the way she stood up to the hordes of right wingers who called her a murderess and a Lesbian and Hitlery and never losing heart. But she lost. Oh well, I guess I'll go vote for the Party who ws doing all that to her." I do not.
If you see those people, leet me know. I'd be interested in observing them.
Hillary got voted off the island, and her fans are angry.
I don't think anybody here claims it's rational. In fact, it's entirely irrational and ridiculous. It doesn't make sense, which is what makes it so easy to dismiss these people for the nutbags they are.
Exactly, we Hillary supporters are dissappointed it's true, but that doesn't mean our only recourse is to make common cause with McSame:
It has been a long long haul under the iron-fisted spinmeistering, election-tampering, imperialist, torturing, borrow-and-spend economy-ruining, speculating, scandal-ridden republicans, and I wouldn't give up our chance for genuine change with Obama.
Thanks for the picture Annes...
I hope you post that picture here every day until the election.
Dear Billie,
It's not easy being Billie. Billie, please go to a website called Media Matters for America. Far Left. I can't believe how they're trashing you? The way they're doing it is so dishonest. They're actually posting what you said. They don't even have the decency to distort and smear you? Can you believe this!! Who do they think they are?
Strike back Billie. You don't have to take this. You're Billie--respected Fock pundit.
Merry Christmas,
Wilbur HeadupButt
On Fox News Sunday, Bill Kristol, who previously declared that "[w]hite women are a problem ... we all live with that," stated of Sen. Hillary Clinton: "She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women.
This twit is a pathological liar who first projects his own subconscious (?) contempt for women, then tries to make it appear that the women in the GOP are anything but old dowager hags and young blonde bimbos as witness the slug who called Hillary a bitch at a McBush rally and Ann Colder. These two are iconic of the types one encounters at social events and in the broad -- er, board -- room of the Weekly Standard.
KRISTOL: "She's put behind her the horrible sexism and misogyny the Democratic primary voters demonstrated, which I'm appalled by, personally. Never would have happened in the Republican Party. You know, we're -- Republicans are much more open to strong women."
I went back and re-read Kristol's remarks and, having now stopped laughing, offer the following queries...
When was the last time the Republican Party was concerned about sexism and misogyny?
If it is the Republican Party which is much more open to strong women how do you account for Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi, the two strongest women in American politics today being Democrats?
What is Bill Kristol's idea of a strong Republican woman? Lynn Cheney?
And...who the hell is Sarah Palin?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/143360/page/1
The above article describes an AP/Yahoo poll taken recently (before June 26, but didn't specify exact dates(s)). Also no mention of the male versus female breakdown. I couldn't find the actual poll, if it's posted. Here are some highlights from the article:
Obama's progress with Clinton supporters is marked, yet far from complete. More than one in five who had backed the New York senator now plan to support Republican John McCain in the fall, a boost for McCain if those opinions hold.
Twenty-three percent of Clinton's backers picked Republican John McCain over Obama. Of the rest, 16 percent were undecided, 5 percent were for independent candidate Ralph Nader and 3 percent said someone else.
The poll suggests the Clinton supporters are wary that he has enough experience to be president. Just 25 percent describe him as experienced, and that drops to 5 percent among those former Clinton backers who are not supporting Obama.
The poll found that choosing Clinton as No. 2 would appear to be a wash for Obama's candidacy. Overall, 28 percent said they would be more likely to vote for the Democratic ticket if Clinton were the nominee, 25 percent said they would be more likely to vote for the Republican ticket if Clinton were the nominee, and 47 percent said it wouldn't make much difference.
An analysis of Clinton supporters who are backing McCain shows they are more liberal than the Arizona senator on the issues. The majority favor removing troops from Iraq as soon as possible, a single-payer health care system funded by taxpayers and repeal of Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy.
The AP-Yahoo News survey of 1,759 adults had an overall margin of sampling error of plus or minus 2.3 percentage points. Included were interviews with 844 Democrats, for whom the margin of sampling error was plus or minus 3.4 points, and 637 Republicans, with a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3.9 points.
The poll was conducted over the Internet after pollsters initially contacted people using traditional telephone polling methods, following up with online interviews. People chosen for the study who had no Internet access were given it for free.
Aside from the anecdotal examples of Hillary supporters settling for Grampy, I have another question; The media keeps mentioning "Reagan Democrats".
I realize this was a term invented for the neutered left-leaners who voted for the Gippers happy talk when Carter talked to America as adults, but does anybody here know anybody who calls themselves a "Reagan Democrat"
That was the first election I voted in (1980) and I saw some of my friends parents fall for the Morning in America BS, but I think most of them figured out they'd been had by '84 or so.
Maybe it's more conflicted for those who are registered as Democrats to accept a diffrent Dem candidate than the one they originally supported,but as somebody who has never been registered with a political party, and whose first choices were neither Clinton or Obama, I can't imagine voting for Gramps.
The GOP made a party-line Democratic voter out of me( at least on the national level) several years ago. They suck that bad.
Colonel, let me give you my take...
Now that the primaries are over Obama will get stronger. Have you noticed the frustration on the part of right wingers such as Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh that all the dirt they've thrown at Obama isn't sticking? Average people have had enough with the Republican Party. The economy is in tatters and a McCain administrqtion is generally regarded as a continuation of Bush's failed administration. People aren't caring about Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers. People want competence and the Republicans have proven to be incompetent at governing. The conservative movement is moribund. The only way McCain could win is by running essentially as a Democrat. This is strictly an opinion...but I believe I am correct.
"People want competence and the Republicans have proven to be incompetent at governing. The conservative movement is moribund. The only way McCain could win is by running essentially as a Democrat. This is strictly an opinion...but I believe I am correct."
Yup, if you inherently believe that government is bad, and you are in charge of said government, wouldn't it only fulfill your original premise to be completely incompetent?
It's funny. Bush won with Clinton's military, in which it only took 20 minutes from the time a scout on horseback relayed bombing positions via computer until the bombs dropped.
In the first Gulf War, that would have taken three days.
I remember the 1980 election. I was 8 years old, living in Arizona and in our mock election at school I remember giggling when they announced the results. Reagan won by a few votes, but there was one vote for John Anderson. That was my vote.
I still can't tell you what Anderson's campaign was about. I just remember thinking the other two were a little goofy.
Dem2020 writing in this thread bears no resemblance to the thoughtful well reasoned posts i have read before. I do not think it is the same person posting as before even taking HRC blindspot into consideration.
It seems to me there are significant numbers of HRC supporters who will consider McCain because he is not African American
HA! No misogyny in the Republican party? That's a good one.
Repulican Voter: How do we beat the bitch?
Johm McCain: That's an excellant question.
And how many times has the GOP had a woman run for president or VP? None that I am aware of. Why? Because women KNOW the GOP base would NEVER EVER EVER vote for them. The GOP platform is built on the premise that women can't think for themselves while pregnant, so why would they assume a position of tolerance for the opinions of a woman president? Can you imagine Kristol extolling President Condi Rice? He and his cohorts would slit their throats before seeing a woman, never mind a BLACK woman, as president. Read between the lines. Kristol is wooing disgruntled Hillary supporters, hoping they'll vote into power another old white man, whose policies are the OPPOSITE of Hillary's, as revenge against people voting for Obama, whose policies are practically the same as Hillary's.
Can they be THAT stupid? Sure. If there is one thing America shall never run out of it's DUMMIES.
Randy