2008 leadership, waawaawaa

Vote for Hillary…

Or you are hate women. Or something. Go read it for yourself. By extension of this argument, Barack Obama is running against all women and he should step down. Or conversely, voting for Hillary is obviously a vote against civil rights. Oh, what to do, what to do, what to do?

He’s (Mayor Quimby Ted Kennedy) joined the list of progressive white men who can’t or won’t handle the prospect of a woman president who is Hillary Clinton

Ummm, yeah. Pass the sour grapes, please?

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Vote for Hillary…

  1. Wow – I just read the original letter – it’s not a really good thing for feminism when one of your leaders comes across as sounding like a high school girl who’s just been dumped for her best friend. BTW, is it just me, or do Billary and her supporters come across as acting like they’ve been reading Karl Rove’s playbook?

    Like

  2. Of course I don’t know the background but wouldn’t it only be the “ultimate betrayal” if some kind of alliance was in place to begin with? Ultimately NOW’s reaction barely rates coverage. Pressure groups venting their spleen gets the same reaction as a car alarm in the inner city. I’m probably on their betrayal list now aren’t I?

    Like

  3. Man, I’d probably shoot myself if I were American.

    You’ve got no choices:

    Voting for Hillary means a continuation of the Iraq war, possibly an attempt at universal health care (but she hasn’t campaigned on that, so who knows if it will happen if she’s elected), and the continued dismissal of any and all poverty issues.

    Voting for Obama may or may not mean a continuation of the Iraq war, may or may not mean changes in health care, may or may not mean a look at race/poverty issues, may or may not mean a lot of things. I’ve seen a lot of his speeches, and he talks a lot about change without specifically stating what that change may be. Is it that much to ask for fucking specifics when someone runs on a platform of change? Granted, he’ll be different than Bush when it comes to foreign affairs with America’s allies, but that’s true of everybody running (now that Captain 9/11 is out of the race).

    Voting for McCain will largely mean a continuation of the Bush policies on taxes, poverty issues, and foreign affairs. He might fix a couple of lobbying/graft issues in Washington, but that’s about it.

    Unfortunately, the only candidates who mentioned real substantive change (Edwards and the Hobbit) are out of it. Probably because they mentioned real substantive change. The traitors.

    At least we know that Hillary will continue the fine political tradition of asking her opponents “have you stopped beating your wife?”. Anyone who’s interested about how dishonest her line of questioning into Obama’s “present” voting record should read this babble thread, which explains the whys and the whens of the “present” votes quite well: The Clinton campaign is lying about Obama’s record on choice

    Like

  4. I don’t know, Bri, I think it’s a bit early in the campaign to start talking about changes – certainly, none of the other candidates seem to be using it as anything other than a buzzword for now. As for the Kucinich as an ‘agent of change’, considering that:

    a. He managed to dodge answering the question of whether he believes in evolution (the only Democratic candidate who did);

    b. He’s introduced legislation into the House banning the use of ‘chemtrails’ and ‘psychotronic rays’; and

    c. He sees flying saucers.

    I might agree with him being an agent of change, but I don’t know that I’d support it – I don’t want the anti-science Huckabee right in power, and I don’t see any reason to replace it with the anti-science Shirley MacLaine left….

    Like

  5. I don’t actually believe that stuff about Kucinich, but I admit to not researching the claims. I figure it’s probably stuff that was ‘reported’ on Faux News and then became fact.

    I do recall Kucinich joking about the UFO stuff with some late night host (Stewart?), making me think that the whole thing was either a) originally a joke that the MSM took seriously or b) made up. But I could’ve been reading his body language incorrectly.

    Did he really dodge the question about evolution? Scary. Oh well, the Dems once again have no one worthy of my support, if true. Big surprise, considering that as a Party they are to the right of the Harpercrats.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s