Hillary blames losing on sexism

HotShotX

HotShotX

CAGiversary!
Feedback
31 (100%)
Talk about grasping at straws.

~HotShotX

(CNN) — In her most wide-ranging comments to date on the role gender has played in the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton said sexist attacks on her campaign have been "deeply offensive," and sharply criticized the press for not raising the issue.

"There should be equal treatment of the sexism and the racism when it raises its ugly head," Clinton told the Washington Post in an article published in the paper's Tuesday edition. "It does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by the comments by people who are nothing but misogynists."

"…I believe this campaign has been a groundbreaker in a lot of ways. But it certainly has been challenging given some of the attitudes in the press."
Listen to excerpts from the Clinton interview.

Clinton, who is banking on a large win in Kentucky Tuesday to keep her presidential hopes alive, also said she doesn't believe racism has played a role in the presidential campaign. But the New York senator said sexist attitudes among voters and members of the media have been a constant detriment to her White House hopes.

Speaking with supporters on a Friday conference call, Clinton said she regretted that many of them have faced sexist attacks.

"I deeply regret the vitriol and the mean-spiritedness and the terrible insults and rhetoric that has been thrown around at you for supporting me, at women in general, at many of those who support my campaign because of who they are and their stand based on principle," she said. "I don't have time for their insults, I'm impervious to them."

Some of those supporters are taking up Clinton’s complaint. Several pro-Clinton and women’s groups are holding rallies Tuesday in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida and Michigan, and outside network studios in Burbank, California.

“If you want to have your voice heard saying, ‘enough is enough!’ then please join us in support of all American women who refuse to be diminished in the American Press,” says Professionals for Hillary in a statement e-mailed to supporters and posted on the group’s Web site.

“We need your support at these rallies to show America that women are not putting up with this anymore! Please send this information to all your Hillary friends and family. Bring your Hillary signs. We need to send a strong message to the media and the Democratic Party that says, ‘not so fast!’”

In an interview with the New York Times over the weekend, 1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro – who supports Clinton — said she may not vote for Barack Obama if he is the party's nominee and said he has acted "terribly sexist."

Speaking on NBC's Today Show Tuesday, Ferraro also said, sexism was "rampant" in this year's presidential campaign. "There is a real difference in this country. It is not okay to be racist. It is just not. It is almost acceptable to be sexist," said Ferraro.

Ferraro has not shied away from discussing the impact of race and gender throughout the Democratic presidential campaign. In March, the former congresswoman told a California newspaper the chief reason Obama's candidacy was successful was because he was black. She maintained her comments were not racist, but ultimately resigned her finance post from the Clinton campaign after they caused an uproar.

Speaking with NBC Tuesday, Ferraro pointed to New Hampshire Clinton rally during which a man in the audience displayed a sign saying "Iron my shirt."

"Suppose somebody at that Barack Obama rally said 'Shine my shoes,'" Ferraro said. “The person would have been swamped by the media saying, ‘what, are you a racist?’ Hillary barely saw press on this. It is not only the Obama campaign. It is how the press has handled this."
Click to expand...
 
Considering Hillary's strong demographics were white men and white women, while Obama's strong demographics were black men and black women... it's pretty fucking obvious racism was a much bigger factor than gender. Obama won despite the racism.

Also LOL at criticizing the media for not making gender an issue. Could you imagine how menstrual she would've gotten if the media covered her gender as much as they covered Obama's race? Could you imagine the outcry from the Clinton camp if we had seen 2 weeks of "Iron My Shirt" 24/7 like we did of Jerimiah Wright?

Bitch needs to stfu.
 
We're ignoring the fact that anyone that desires to control the world's most powerful nation shouldn't be allowed to.

If you have $50 million to blow on maybe becoming the president, you obviously have an agenda to replace that and then some; and I have a feeling it's hardly altruistic.
 
[quote name='Kayden']We're ignoring the fact that anyone that desires to control the world's most powerful nation shouldn't be allowed to.[/quote]

It's better than giving the job to someone who DOESN'T want to be assed wardening an insane asylum with hundreds of millions of patients.
 
Nothing she says or does surprises me, she was supposed to be president before people vote.

However this is a new low for her, and that is just really sad. If she does "win" or ever becomes the nominee now or in the future for the democratic party I'm going to registrar as a commie. A commie is still better than a republican.
 
It's not like she's going to win the nomination anyway. Anything she does at this point is self-serving (redundant, I know) and will serve to fracture and tarnish the Democrat party going into an election year that is such a "gimmie" for Dems it's not even funny.

As I've said before, two things you can be sure of in politics: that the Republicans will be in lockstep with their insidious attacks, and the Democrats will demonstrate immense stupidity and ineptitude in elections that they should handily win.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']It's not like she's going to win the nomination anyway. Anything she does at this point is self-serving (redundant, I know) and will serve to fracture and tarnish the Democrat party going into an election year that is such a "gimmie" for Dems it's not even funny.

As I've said before, two things you can be sure of in politics: that the Republicans will be in lockstep with their insidious attacks, and the Democrats will demonstrate immense stupidity and ineptitude in elections that they should handily win.[/QUOTE]

Precisely my thoughts. She's more or less going scorched earth at this point, in the vain hopes she can pull it off, too self-centered to realize she's just handicapping her party come November. Of course, if she had any interest in her party or base, she might not be losing right now.
 
I'm a Hillary supporter, but who really cares about this. People just like finding a way to hate on Hillary because she's the best candidate IMO (I've always liked the Clinton administration). I like Obama too, but felt he just wasn't ready yet.
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I'm a Hillary supporter, but who really cares about this. People just like finding a way to hate on Hillary because she's the best candidate IMO (I've always liked the Clinton administration). I like Obama too, but felt he just wasn't ready yet.[/QUOTE]

I was a Hillary supporter before she started going batshit insane.

The stench of failure must have gotten to her.
 
I sort of see it both ways.

One way:
Hillary would make a great president. She has lots of charm and wit, is extremely intelligent, is ambitious and exudes nothing but competence. Her female diplomacy could do much to undue 8 years of testosterone fueled foreign policy. I also couldn't agree more with her ideas to make sure that every citizen gets the healthcare we need. She has run a very strong campaign (though I question her decision to paint herself with the "experience" brush, instead of the "change" brush). Anyone who thinks she is too old/entrenched to parlay "change" ought to see Nixon's first campaign.
Moreover, every mistake she had made (not many) have all be exagerated and maginified 100times by the calibre of candidate she is running against. Obama is a formidable foe to her indeed. It is also worthy of note that if I was a Hillary supporter, and really got behind her, I'd WANT to see her stick it out until the end, until it is simply impossible. It's close to that, but it's not impossible yet. I say this with the caveat that I wouldn't want her doing it at the expense of the Democratic Party.
Some argue that the continuation of her apparently futile campaign is doing harm to Obama. I see the argument but disagree. THe more POSITIVE attention the Dems get, the better. McCain has had a very tough time getting any airtime whatsoever with the way the Dem race is shaping up. It would be one thing if the Dem race turned quite negative, but it has not. Both Hillary and Obama have indicated that they'll wholeheartedly support either candidate "whoever she may be."
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I'm a Hillary supporter, but who really cares about this. People just like finding a way to hate on Hillary because she's the best candidate IMO (I've always liked the Clinton administration). I like Obama too, but felt he just wasn't ready yet.[/quote]

I personally liked the (Bill) Clinton administration myself, but I very much believe that an Obama administration > a Rodham administration, and let's face facts, just because you bang someone does not make you the master of their trade ala the "Mega Man" scheme of power gaining.

I think his lack of experience is actually an asset to this country, because it will bring a sense of humility that has been forgotten with the past 16 years of "My dick is bigger than your dick" foreign policy.

The best way to rebuild our country's status in the world is to actually acknowledge that we've been knocked down a few notches due to the Bush administration, and that we need to work our way back up the honest way of politics and negotiation, rather than waving our guns about and invading other countries.

~HotShotX
 
Ya know she should STFU because she, as a WOMAN, has made it pretty far by this point. Even if Obama loses, he as a BLLLLAAAACK (LOL @ media) man has made it pretty damn far and neither of them should complain.

:nottalking:
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']I'm a Hillary supporter, but who really cares about this. People just like finding a way to hate on Hillary because she's the best candidate IMO (I've always liked the Clinton administration). I like Obama too, but felt he just wasn't ready yet.[/QUOTE]

Wow.

Just...wow.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Wow.

Just...wow.[/QUOTE]

Not surprising. It's just the political version of his "People hate the PS3 because it's the best" spiel.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']Not surprising. It's just the political version of his "People hate the PS3 because it's the best" spiel.[/quote]

Yes it is.

Better watch it TMK, we here in the vs. forum don't take kindly to tautological reasoning where you assume the thing you're trying to prove: (e.g. Hillary is the best b/c she is the best), or outsiders (myke especially, lol).

And WTF do you mean he isn't ready yet? He has held office longer than Hillary! Our current president couldn't tie is own fuckin shoes. How exactly is he "not ready?"
 
[quote name='The Mana Knight']People just like finding a way to hate on Hillary because she's the best candidate IMO [/quote]

And Hillary hasn't unfairly attacked Obama?
 
[quote name='homeland']Sexism? Just like her to be oblivious to the facts.[/QUOTE]

Got to say, that video is pretty excellent.
 
Pitti she isn't charming. Look at Obama and her and compare, seriously. Hillary can't hide her ambition. I don't know if I can't believe if the crying jag was a political stunt or real. Shit I may even feel the same about that shooter they had.
Obama, even if he's full of shit, can be believable.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Pitti she isn't charming. Look at Obama and her and compare, seriously. Hillary can't hide her ambition. I don't know if I can't believe if the crying jag was a political stunt or real. Shit I may even feel the same about that shooter they had.
Obama, even if he's full of shit, can be believable.[/quote]
Hillary is the scum of the earth. What was that kmart thing where all these old people lost their money and she had a parachute. My mom called it saying she wouldn't put it past Hillary to put a hit out on Obama. No matter what you think she doesn't care about the people, just Hillary. Obama has to spew out some shit because he is a politician, thats how they do. But people, Jesus is coming and is going by the name Barack Obama. I just hope some jealous shithead doesn't kill him.
 
There certainly was/is sexism against her, and in some roundabout way she might have lost because of it (her entire career she has probably acted more hardass than she is simply because she has to since she's a woman vs. men). She may just be like she acts though, or may have consequently become that.

Obama has it a little easier on the Iraq war issue since he wasn't there to vote. He may well have voted against it as he says, but luckily he never had to and so that can't be used against him. I'm not sure if Hillary is losing purely because of Iraq (I also think she has an abrasive personality - perhaps for the reasons I stated earlier - and Obama really beats her in that area), so there are probably other reasons that Obama is winning.

I'd have to agree with Ferraro about sexism vs. racism though, at least in explicit attitudes. Expressed racism is pretty much socially unacceptable (and so most racism is implicit, or only expressed when there are no consequences/someone else can be blamed). Sexism isn't at that level of unacceptability. You won't get the backlash for being openly sexist that you will for being openly racist (the "iron my shirt" example is a pretty good one).

It's impossible to say if she would win if there was no sexism, since, as I said, her entire life and career has existed with sexism. If Obama loses to McCain it will also be impossible to tell if he would've won if there was no racism. Obviously both sexism and racism are factors in this election. They may not necessarily be the deciding factors, but they're definitely there.

With that I'd say that she should probably not push longer since Obama is pretty much set to win and it would be better for the party in November if she just got behind him and they started jointly attacking Republicans rather than each other.
 
Hillary's problem is she's a liar and deceiver. She rally's against how unfair it is to not count Fl. and Michigan, yet haven't heard her mention once how she agreed to not counting those states. She lied about the sniper fire, she lied about being against the Iraq war, She lied about being against NAFTA. Its not that she's a woman, she's just a con-artist. Maybe Barrack is as well (hopefully not), but just hides it better then Hillary.
 
[quote name='SpazX']There certainly was/is sexism against her, and in some roundabout way she might have lost because of it (her entire career she has probably acted more hardass than she is simply because she has to since she's a woman vs. men). She may just be like she acts though, or may have consequently become that.

Obama has it a little easier on the Iraq war issue since he wasn't there to vote. He may well have voted against it as he says, but luckily he never had to and so that can't be used against him. I'm not sure if Hillary is losing purely because of Iraq (I also think she has an abrasive personality - perhaps for the reasons I stated earlier - and Obama really beats her in that area), so there are probably other reasons that Obama is winning.

I'd have to agree with Ferraro about sexism vs. racism though, at least in explicit attitudes. Expressed racism is pretty much socially unacceptable (and so most racism is implicit, or only expressed when there are no consequences/someone else can be blamed). Sexism isn't at that level of unacceptability. You won't get the backlash for being openly sexist that you will for being openly racist (the "iron my shirt" example is a pretty good one).

It's impossible to say if she would win if there was no sexism, since, as I said, her entire life and career has existed with sexism. If Obama loses to McCain it will also be impossible to tell if he would've won if there was no racism. Obviously both sexism and racism are factors in this election. They may not necessarily be the deciding factors, but they're definitely there.

With that I'd say that she should probably not push longer since Obama is pretty much set to win and it would be better for the party in November if she just got behind him and they started jointly attacking Republicans rather than each other.[/QUOTE]

Sexism's not taken as seriously because it's not as real. Watch in awe.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-q4MDQ0cDI

There were some good clips of racist voters on The Daily Show, too.


Still, regardless of the he-said she-said bickering this is turning into, the exit polls say it all.

Obama won 91% of the black vote in West Virginia, but only 21% of the white vote.

Obama won 30% of the male vote, and 22% of the female vote.

The change in vote by race is 70%, while the change in vote by gender is 8%. Clearly, a state with voters divided by race. This is pretty common, if you look at the polls. You can look at the stats more closely and realize there is basically no sexism at all.

On the exit polls, 18% of voters said gender was important to them, 81% was said it wasn't. The 18% who said gender was important voted Hillary by a larger margin than those who said it wasn't important. Of the 18% who said gender was important, 8% were male and 9% were female. Both demographics voted Hillary.

Sexism is not an issue in this race.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top