Skip to comments.Victim of Sexism? Women Rally 'Round Clinton
Posted on 05/24/2008 8:13:19 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Many women were driven to vote this week in Kentucky following fierce comments made by Sen. Hillary Clinton.
"Some have said your votes didn't matter, that this campaign was over..." the New York senator said over and over on the campaign trail in Kentucky in the days before the primary there on Tuesday.
If you talk to voters at her rallies, you will find women who resent what they view as Clinton being pushed out of the presidential race. A Clinton support group formed last week and has run full-page ads in newspapers stating, "Not so Fast."
Many female Clinton supporters are suddenly galvanized and are angry at what they call blatant sexism in this presidential race.
"If you can read racism into something someone says, the media is all over it, but so many blatant sexist things have been said," Clinton volunteer Robin Rowlinson said.
Clinton supporter Cynthia Ruccia is part of a grassroots movement comprised of many people who say that if Clinton isn't the nominee, they'll try to stop her Democratic opponent Sen. Barack Obama from being elected president.
Ruccia claims there are more than 25,000 members of her group. These female Clinton supporters point to comments Obama has made that they feel are sexist.
Among those remarks are comments such as: "You're likeable enough, Hillary," and "Suddenly her claws start coming out."
Members of the Obama campaign say they're keenly aware they need to reach out to these women and keep female Clinton supporters from turning away if he does win the nomination.
"For we women who are probably 55 percent, at least, of the Democratic Party, this was such a betrayal," Ruccia said.
Clinton herself told the Washington Post, "It does seem as though the press is at least not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been endangered by the comments by people who are nothing buy misogynists."
To some, the timing of the complaints is suspicious.
"Right now, Hillary Clinton supporters want to try to find something to blame for why this nomination didn't happen, other than Hillary," Democratic strategist Jenny Backus said.
In fact, exit polling is indicating Clinton's gender is helping her win votes.
But if Clinton does drop out, many diehard Clinton fans say they simply can't bring themselves to vote for Obama. Some have stated they would even vote for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee.
Historically, even though many people say during the primary campaigns that they'll never vote for the enemy, by the time November rolls around, they often seem to have changed their minds.
All these dumb broads will pull the lever for Barry after the Abortion/Supreme Court/Scalito/McCain ads and rhetoric are done.
But those same women said nothing when this reprehensible witch defended her sexual predator husband.
Liberalism is a disease.
The witch won the men’s vote. What else does she want?
If Democrats are killing her due to sexism in primaries, wtf does she expect from Republicans and independents in General Election?
It's cuz everyone's sexist.
It's not because you are the suckiest suck that ever sucked. It's because there's something wrong with everyone else.
Palin would make a great VP pick for McLiberal.
Lot’s of angry feminists out there.
Barack Fitzgerald Obama will pick a woman not named Hillary as his running mate, so the point would probably be mute.
They aren't men. They are wimps to the nth degree. I would use harsher language but my post would get removed.
Racism, Sexism and Geriatricism. What ridiculous presidential candidates and voter year!
Barry Os VP nominee will be Sibelius.
(sorry, couldn't help it)
Don’t make me spend 5 minutes googling Sibelius. Just tell me what you know and what you mean, dawg. (I like it when people call me dawg)
Is that how “moot point” is spelled? You learn something new every day.
Yeah, but I bet you don't know about "Mooting Competitions".
Of course, in a sane universe, Obama would also be nothing more than moot as well.
Oh the mootness of it all! (don't use that last example, it's made up)
Thanks. He has to pick a woman as VP. But based on that pic in Wikipedia, Sebelius won’t do....
THAT’S A MAN, BABY!!!!!
NO IT'S NOT! (I was only 3 seconds behind you!) ;-)
I don’t know how to start a new thread but think you folks here would be interested in this page.
It tells about Hillary being fired from the Watergate Committee and is quite a story about her being a liar way back then.
So you really do (or can) learn something new everyday!!
Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old
Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the
investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who
was also Sen. Ted Kennedys chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair.
When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee
staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation one of only three
people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifmans 17-year career.
Because she was a liar, Zeifman said in an interview last week. She was
an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the
rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of
How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldnt do it
by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals including
Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel
(and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum who
engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right
to counsel during the investigation.
Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared
putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be
cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the
goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have
made Watergate look like a day at the beach including Kennedys
purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.
The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of
top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip ONeill,
that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along
with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on
the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon.
And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal
brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.
It seems she hasn’t really changed at all, she has always been out to have her own way whether it was ethical or not.
She made up her own rules way back then.
And look at where it has gotten her - at the top of the democrat party, with the WH in her sights.
I just hope young women today don't taker her as a role model.
.Check out this awesome video:
The same kind of terrorists who support Obama did this:
Never apologize for them.
Never appease them.
Reportedly, Christopher Hitchens has just given up smoking. Apparently, this has had no effect on his curmudgeonly tone, but then again, Hitchens could hardly get more pointed in his criticisms. Today he rightly sets his sights on identity politics and exposes it as a trade for one bigotry over another (via Real Clear Politics):
People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.
Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .) ...
I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice.
At the heart of Hitchen's argument is this fact: it is just as chauvinistic to vote for someone on the basis of their gender or ethnicity as it is to vote against them for the same reason. It's reflexively a form of bigotry, the notion that a candidate is superior for these superficial reasons, or that different groups should get "turns" at holding power. The latter especially represents the antithesis of individual liberty and equality and instead vaults identity politics into a system in which elites make determinations of power distribution.
In that system, the real power remains with the elites, not with the symbolic representation of the groups -- and the elites know it.
The high priestess in the Cult of the Perpetually Offended is melting.
Would you prefer stew or soup. ladies?
Yes, indeed she was.
That’s good :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.