Start A Petition

Clinton Battles Unconscious Bias Against Strong Women

Society & Culture  (tags: women, politics, discrimination, gender, gender discrimination, strong leaders, assertive women )

- 3748 days ago -
people discriminate against female leaders because qualities stereotypically associated with women (nurturance) conflict with stereotypically masculine qualities associated with effective leaders (assertiveness)..They achieve success/lose popularity.

Select names from your address book   |   Help

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.


Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 2:05 am
Yes, she's experienced in both domestic and global politics....and yes, she's a born leader, independent thinker, and successful lawyer & politician......but there's gender bias, and this article examines why that is.

Thomas Panto (364)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 3:15 am

Is she willing to change ?
..or will corporations continue to OWN Americans and treat all Humans like slaves ?
whatever our bias may be, it is nothing compared to the bias that we are all subjected to.

Michael Sandstrom (306)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 3:41 am
Noted, I'd Love to see a good woman President, when you gonna run Kathy?? I'd vote for you in a heart beat!!

Hans L (958)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 5:32 am
Kathy for president i would vote for that to guarantee change will Clinton bring the change or please the
establishment.. i am afraid it needs more radical sollutions but she is a born leader and i agree women
are better than men! Just look at the stocks of companies run by women...they all perform better!
Because a woman has to be better to be up there!!!! BUT YOU KNOW THAT ANYHOW!!
Thank you Kathy

. (0)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 5:50 am
Noted...many thanks Kathy

Past Member (0)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 6:41 am
Kathy, I agree whole-heartedly with you about Hillary. It is true though that there is gender bias and I am not sure that we will ever got past that. I would like to think we can, but its almost as if it is built in. I think it is something that we have to work really hard at educating people in general about and teaching them how we want to be treated. For too many years we as women have been kept downa nd we have allowed it because we didnt think we had the right to be more than what others told us we were. Recently we have woken up and realized we can be anything we aspire to be and that it is up to us to teach others how we want to be treated. So I say, gender bias is yet another one of those myths that we as women much show others that we do not and will not accept anymore. We want to be treated as equals and we will not accept any kind of behaviour that is less then what we deserve as a human being and a woman.

Thanks Kathy for sharing all the great stuff with us and encouraging us to use our voices to motivate the masses to use thiers.

Peace, love, and light,

Past Member (0)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 10:12 am
that's correct and she seems to lose the battle.

Kim K (12)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 10:42 am
What we have been witnessing, through the shameful media distortions that continually assault us whenever we turn on the TV, or listen to the radio...has pretty much been WITCH BURNING 101.

Interesting how racial bias is (appropriately) intolerable, and yet there has been a tsunami of hatred and poison unleashed from both women and men, Obama supporters, and the media, onto one single woman,
Hillary Clinton.
Its terrifying how the media creates whatever reality it chooses, and more terrifying that so many are so easily influenced and "molded" by whatever they hear. The word IS powerful, and it has been used darkly- in service of hatred and judgement- in my opinion.

We should not only honor the scars of slavery and racism from the past- but should be aware of how we are NOW using words to distort reality, and intentionally harm others.

Hillary Clinton is an amazing, strong, imperfect (like most human beings) woman who has been subject to the world's misogyny. Is this fair? Is this even sane?
Let's never forget the thousands of women burned as "witches" not too long ago.
There's really little difference happening these days.


Tom Adamski (1)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 2:33 pm
Any bias has nothing to do with her being a woman, strong or weak. People are biased against liars, and Hillary has lots of dishonesty in her background.

Sacha Delfosse (0)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 2:49 pm
I think looking at the gender issue is misleading. Female leaders have proven they can be as brutal, corrupt and misguided as males, so the whole 'nuturuing' side is a myth. Men can nuture too. But men that nuture will not make it in the world of politics, just like a nuturuing woman wont. the issue is the plitical system, which creates evil men and women and rewards them with power, which corrupts anyone that has it. Plus if we are going to look at Hilary from the 'women' angle, why not the 'white' angle, the 'christian' angle, the 'academic/intellectual' angle, the 'millionaire plus' angle? Identity politcisa falis beacause peoples identities are multipule and overlap, so someone like Hilary isnt just 'a woman' but a whole bunch of other things as well.
What would Hilary have in common with a black, jewish, lesbian single mother, with no education, living of welfare or on minimum wages? The fact that Hilary is trying to use her 'womanhood' to get to power should show how much she actually doesn't value that side of her, but cynically trying to sway voters.

Kim K (12)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 3:08 pm
I would hazard a guess that most of the antagonistic, over the top, vitriole directed towards HClinton has little to do with some any sort of thoughful analysis of her character, or any special "insider information", and more to do with the glee in jumping on the hate bandwagon.
Its easy, its familiar, its America today.

Disagreeing with her is one thing. have a hate fest is another.

Most of the 20 somethings voting for Obama don't even remember the Clinton presidency, never mind having a handle on the candidate's qualifications. political history, or skill level.

Yes, there are skeletons in her closet. Every human being- and certainly every politician- has LOTS of imperfections.
The point is....Why are women not allowed imperfection or humanity? If they show weakness, and vulnerability, they are derided and taken advantage of. If they show power, life force, and intellect, they are derided, and made to feel ashamed of their power.

This is an OLD, OLD, story......

It seems clear to me that Clinton might be the more capable person to resolve the problems our country is currently facing. If these were 2 white men competing, we would be judging each person fairly, based on their history, their qualifications, and their proposed solutions to our problems.

Nuraini A (41)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
i dunno. i'm not american, and i don't know if i'm typical or not... but my preference of a leader is for someone competent, but also beyond that, visionary and someone who pulls people to follow him or her. i have a female boss, and i think she is a fantastic boss, savvy, knows how to foster working relationships, has a great overview of the big picture and communicates it well to us. her leadership style does feel slightly more female than the other male bosses i've had before, but this is immaterial to a really good leader - it enhances the basic leadership qualities, and enhances it in a way that makes it hers. or his.

while it may be true that people have more difficulty accepting women in strong leadership positions, my personal opinion is that this isn't the whole story with the reception clinton is getting. for one thing, before the other candidates, and obama in particular, became better known to voters, clinton was leading overwhelmingly and with enthusiastic supporters. if voters didn't feel comfortable with a woman as president, she would've gotten the majority but lukewarm support, similar to what mccain is generating among his party.

for me personally, you can hire statisticians and people to work out the execution and details, but you can't just hire vision. of course a leader needs to understand details and understand facts and figures, but beyond all of that is what he or she makes of them, into an overriding whole. when you can have a visionary leader, you put him or her in charge of the manager-type leader. the latter can be trained and found fairly easily, the former is rare. rarer still are such leaders, coming at the right time. no leader will be perfect, but at least a visionary one can take you to a whole new level, to a new, perhaps better paradigm. and after that you can have leaders who will keep things trundling along again, on a better road. you see, a visionary leader who listens and enables, is a stronger one because people follow him/her, and among those who follow will be many who will have the skills that complete him/her - the whole method of leadership is different, which is enabling and co-ordinating the followers, rather than the person himself having the best mix of all skills required to do everything. he does not have to do everything and be everything, because the many will be all things. but it's much trickier to unite and focus the many to an over-riding vision, compared to doing it yourself and managing others who execute your plan, and that is why this type of leader is rare.

if a candidate who says what hillary says and makes the decisions she makes were a man, i'd still not like him. although i admit i might secretly think, 'what do you expect from a man?' but i think if a candidate speaks of vision and a new paradigm like obama, and the candidate is a woman, i'd feel compelled by the idea just the same. although i think it helps if the visionary type leader is male - because if a female were to be such a leader she will face a tougher job than hillary in her conventional-leader role, because i think a woman who is visionary is more easily dismissed as a flake. it's because women tend to be seen as naive, and idealists are also linked with naivete, so the two combined will discredit her even if she is not actually naive.

so to me the sexism in leadership question is not the premise that hillary is being treated unfairly because she's a strong woman. the real sexism in leadership problem is that a leader like hillary can be male or female, no problem. but i think a leader like obama needs to be male to be taken seriously.

Carolyn T (234)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 7:17 pm
Noted. Kim, the final paragraph of your post captures my thoughts precisely and that is where I want the debate to take place. Qualifications to lead and nothing else. Obama's depth of experience vs. Clinton's same experience merely repeated over and over. I am a true independent voter and I don't care about the gender or color of our next president: I care about electing someone who has the clout and the intestinal fortitude to move swiftly to stop our country from bleeding out. Real issues like homelessness, national in-debt, poverty, joblessness, education, health care, peace at home and abroad, ad infinitum. Anything else is a red herring. Thank you so much, Kathy, for this conversation and the story you have brought.

Darlene K (356)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 7:24 pm
Kathy, you strong spirited soul...., give me some news to chew on that does hit on a reality I found in the community with some women's perspective's of "female leaders". It is very surprising how many carry the traditional perspective of what their parents and grandparents had on the same issue. So outdated, in my opinion.
Hillary has come out I don't know how many times and said I MADE A MISTAKE 8 years ago supporting the war, and funding the war, but no one cares....., it doesn't matter. She voted against the last legislation for more funds, because it didn't have a deadline for troops to withdrawal. That don't matter neither, she's a woman, and she made mistakes....,so many women seem to feel they can judge one's ability to be President, JUST by these attributes, alone. **sighs**
The media HATES her. If she is soooo corporate, why does that media talk of her every flaw, and praise the other candidates gift of "speaking" to the people...., please..., heh. CNN, and MSNBC just don't like her, one bit.

But , hey Kathy....., you know what I love about Hillary, is she is still standing...., tall. She has been ripped apart, I know too many things personal about this woman and her family, that I really don't need to know, thanks to the media. And...Hillary is still up there marching state to state, ready for more debates, and moving forward towards the National Convention. The choices aren't great this election year, but Hillary is the best choice for 2008.
She doesn't want this nation to continue into a recession and head into a depression..., AND she doesn't want to go to war. These are her CURRENT POSITIONS.

Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 9:02 pm
I don't think the discrimination that Hillary Clinton has to face every day DOES completely have to do with whether she's married to Bill or not. I think we really DO have a bias, a prejudice, a very real and tangible problem in this country (and I'm sure around the world) with women in power. We could go on and discuss the experiences that Obama or McCain or she brings to the table, but the fact is....there were NOT any other women ...independent or otherwise, in the position to run for President, and THAT bothers ME. It's way past time, and whether Clinton inspires you or some other's still pretty darn accurate to say there will be MORE people disliking the thought of trusting a woman in a position of power. The opposition IS tangible. Of course, there are good female bosses, and politicians, and doctors, and whatever other career! Why shouldn't there be. What we're discussing is that there's still DISCRIMINATION by both men AND women when these women achieve that power.

Past Member (0)
Thursday February 14, 2008, 9:32 pm
oh yeah there is a big gender bias in this country, I wish there wasn't. I do think Hillary has lots of experience though...thanks Kathy noted.

Lynda L (96)
Friday February 15, 2008, 12:15 am
This woman most likely has twice the IQ of the "Idiot in charge "..that we have now, and since we put up with him and he won two terms, it boggles the mind, why this country wouldn't be jumping at the chance to have someone of her caliber in this position! Are the men of America THAT afraid of women, really? Every women should appreciate what Hillary has done with her life, she gives the rest of us hope that women won't continue to be second class in the US. Most aren't even aware that ERA wasn't passed. It's sad with a country of mostly women we can't get a woman for President, but can elect a moron twice!

Simon Wood (207)
Friday February 15, 2008, 5:29 am
First of all, I agree that many people are sexist - many men AND WOMEN are sexist. Plus people have some illogical, unrealistic beliefs about psychology. Even the summary of this article is an example of this. Contrary to what it claims, being "nurturing" (being compassionate, giving praise, showing interest in people, etc.) does not conflict with assertiveness. In fact, the only healthy way to be nurturing is to BE ASSERTIVE as well. (The alternatives to assertiveness - aggressiveness and passivity [which in general means "passive-aggressiveness"] - are unhealthy.)

E.g. parents who do not assert themselves (their healthy desires, their rights) are doormats to their children - they feel like they are like servants to their children, without freedom, and they feel quite dissatisfied. The result of this is not only are they unhappy, but this "martyr" role does not even help their children. Children develop into psychologically healthier adults if their parents teach them that they are not the centre of the universe, that everyone has desires and rights, and that it is vital for each of us to consider each others' desires and rights in order to have happy relationships with each other. The key is to achieve a balance between the parent's healthy desires and rights, and the childs. (And this changes with age, as children become more capable and can become more independent.)

Back to the matter at hand. If you think a woman in charge will be a kinder leader than a man, think again. Remember Margaret Thatcher? The working class of the U.K. remember her harsh anti-worker, anti-welfare policies very well. She caused much suffering, but much rejoicing amongst the rich who benefitted at the expense of the poor. I.e. she helped the strong and attacked the weak. There was nothing chvalrous or nurturing about Thatcher. She was the British equivalent of Reagan.

If the U.S.A. elects Hillary Clinton, we can expect to see a continued U.S. occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can expect the hypocritical U.S. "War on Terror" to continue - i.e. that front for draconian domestic laws and aggressive imperialist foreign policy. We can expect U.S. support ($3 billion per year in military aid) for Israeli atrocities and oppression of the people of Palestine to continue. And we can expect similar domestic policies as well (e.g. continued poor health care, with plenty of continued profiteering in the health industry by big business - instead of free health care for all provided by the government) - although these policies will be slightly nicer than those of Bush.

We can expect similar policies from Obama.

We can expect similar policies from John McCain, but harsher and more belligerant, more similar to Bush.

The main difference is symbolic: do you want a white woman? A black man? A white man?

However, if you really care about supporting U.S. policies that are environmentally friendly, are pro-peace, are egalitarian and that truly support human rights for everyone, then you will support a candidate like Dennis Kucinich. Whatever his gender or ethnicity, his POLICIES are much more fair, much more compassionate.

But Dennis Kucinich is not mentioned anymore, because the Democrat Party (with its corporate funding, just as the Republican Party is corporate funded) won't put him up for election, so now the corporate media generally focusses on attacking their least favourite candidates who are still running - the candidates that are slightly worse for corporations, e.g. Hillary Clinton. What a terrible choice you have in the U.S.A.: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain. It's just like on that episode of South Park: who will you vote for: the giant douche or the turd sandwich (but wait, there's one more still running: how about a bucket of vomit?)? Really sad. Is there no better candidate? Are the Greens running a candidate?

To hell with gender or ethnicity. What are the candidates' POLICIES???

Kim K (12)
Friday February 15, 2008, 8:01 am
Yes, Kucinich would have been the TRUE candidate of change! His ideas were progressive and visionary in every way. Too bad that he's light years ahead of his time... If the country "walked its talk" about truly wanting fundamental change in government, he would have been the way to go.

Obama seems like a good person, with noble intentions, but he will be trying to work within the same corrupt system as everyone else...and, unlike HClinton.. he doesn't seem very savvy as to how to work around the system to make significant (vs. showy) changes happen within that context. Seems like he tends to compromise, instead of "bringing together".
Just my opinion..Clinton seems to me to have a better understanding of how to navigate through the muddy swamps. And yes, her strong assertiveness is necessary here. Not so much a male trait, but a "Yang" energy...We all carry this within...its part of the energy of the Universe...nothing to do with gender.

Teresa S (105)
Friday February 15, 2008, 10:41 am
I would vote for you too Kathy!! For I believe YOU would make a good leader also.Keep up the good work,and let's get a lady in the WHITEHOUSE!!!

Past Member (0)
Friday February 15, 2008, 10:46 am
Whenever you hear someone say about Hillary, "I don't know why, I just hate her", I think that you're hearing gender bias. And it comes from other women, too.

Karin B (33)
Friday February 15, 2008, 11:59 am
I think there are those who put way too much emphasis on gender. I consider myself to be a feminist, and I absolutely refuse to vote for her. There are issues here that are much more important than gender. Number one, she voted for war in Iraq. Sorry, but 1 million dead Iraqis heavily weigh on my mind. Hillary had the resources to easily find out that there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11, etc. But she chose not to. Those who suffer most from the war in Iraq are the women over there. As a feminist I am on their side.

She also voted against freedom of opinion. Whilst I am not in favor of burning any country's flag, I firmly believe that those who want to burn flags should have the right to do this.

The Clintons have also been using a lot of spin to make Obama look bad. Right now, we have a president who has employed dozens of expert spinners, do we need more of that? I was hoping for some credibility and respect in the White House.

In summary, there are real issues at stake not just gender. And as a woman I feel somewhat insulted if people tell me that I should support a female candidate just because I am female. I am for competence, honesty, integrity, etc. A firm believer in the best person should get the job.

Darlene K (356)
Friday February 15, 2008, 1:24 pm
Simon, you make some very good points, and thank goodness many of those who had these type of parents that did use the "martyr" role, or in the opposite, those who had the types of parents that pushed assertiveness in a agresssiveness nature, have grown into adults have made their OWN assessment of how to approach this issue with a careful balance.

Then you lost me with Kucinich....., People...the man has gone back to doing his great work Congress. He has moved forward, dear fellow Americans. He has taken himself out of the race. I am baffled that Americans refuse to accept this fact. This is being WAY TO ASSERTIVE. Now, follow his example and do what is in the best interest of this election of what your vote CAN do. Voting for someone NOT running, does absolutely nothing, but make you a "martyr", and a vote that helps the evils in government have more power.
This concept is not hard to grasp.

Look at their plans, policies or whatever you want to call them, and deal with that anguishing decision that all of us had to deal with, and vote your best of the what we have to pick. That is ALL we can do, as Americans and as Human Beings.

Darlene K (356)
Friday February 15, 2008, 1:39 pm
Karin..., are you serious? Every Media I see, is trashing Hillary and her life. SPIN? Everything she says and spinned. Obama Honest? And I know you haven't checked the Library of Congress to look at his short congressional record. This part really blew me away...., Do you actually think that any President that takes office, ISN'T going to send our troops right back into Pakistan and Afghanistan with the turmoil that has increased? I don't believe that for one minute from ANY of them. For me, it comes down to who will be able to handle these events with knowledge and experience of how these very complex foreign countries operate.

That is Hillary, to me. McCain just wants war, period, and Obama is too green. The chant of "Yes We Can, Yes We Will"...., does he have a mouse in his pocket? "We the American people", ALWAYS WANTED TO, AND WE ALWAYS WOULD HAVE, if our government wasn't so corrupt. Senator Obama..., should be chanting "Yes I can, and Yes I Will". He is the one that will hold the huge job of the Presidency. He uses his words so crafty to inspire and grab votes with inspiration, and the people are sucking it up, blindly. So many of this nations are ready to turn this HUGE MESS over to a man with very minimal experience, and is just as coporate as the rest. Hello......, WHAT ABOUT HIS LOVE FOR COAL, AND LIQUID COAL. Geezz, I just am baffled....GO HILLARY!

Karin B (33)
Friday February 15, 2008, 3:43 pm
Darlene: I am dead serious. Most of everything that Bill Clinton said about Obama in the last couple of months was a blatant lie. I used to have a lot of respect for Bill Clinton, not anymore.

Also, there is no way I will ever vote for anybody who was in favor of going to war with Iraq. One million Iraqis lost, does that count for anything?????? I lived in the middle east for a while, and let me tell you, these are people like you and me and they have deserved to live a life without fear, without being surrounded by death. I feel with the women over there; the rape, the killing, etc. And yes, anybody who was in favor of this war needs to stand up and take responsibility for this.

Remember the Nuremberg trials??? We need something like that over here.

Why do you think is not supporting Clinton? Not because they are sexist, it's because of the issues, or lack thereof.

Darlene K (356)
Friday February 15, 2008, 4:06 pm
Please, give it up. We were going to war WITH OR WITHOUT Hillary voting Yea went it came to her voice. Many voted, Yea thanks to the 935 lies. I have several active Army, Navy, and Air Force family members stateside and in Iraq, so please...., and I also have a few retired USAF family members. They are voting for Hillary. I am a member of I won't even go there!, Because I am thinking of leaving it. Sexist was the perfect word, in my opinion.

RC deWinter (418)
Friday February 15, 2008, 4:31 pm
I don't think this is an unconscious bias at all...I think it's open and misogynistic and men are more than happy to complain about her openly...and some twisted women too!

Past Member (0)
Friday February 15, 2008, 5:55 pm
there is definitely a gender bias...the men are certainly going for Obama because he is a man is still a Good Old Boys Club has to be changed & Hillary is the one to change it...and I agree with Cate it is not an unconscious bias at all...thanks for putting this out there Kathy...noted for sure

Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Friday February 15, 2008, 6:12 pm
Unfortunately, are the type of woman that I worry about way more than the men who constantly take jabs at successful and ambitious women. You do not have your eyes open to the fact that men still make not-so-subtle comments that are derrogatory and demeaning almost every where I am. Whether it's a electrolysis-comment about Hillary on Boston Legal, or a "she looks like a man" comment by a man standing next to you at the grocery.....they're still jabs that are unnecessary! Could have a white, male leader?? I'm wondering.... (esp. with what Darllene has to say about them!)

If McCain OR Obama had to endure ANY of the MANY comments Hillary has had to in this campaign....they'd have given up a LONG time ago....and their wives just might have gotten (as if they haven't already) as fiesty as Bill did.

It's amazing to me that the women of this country do not open their eyes and see the reality of the sexism STILL VERY MUCH ALIVE in our country.

C G (63)
Friday February 15, 2008, 6:25 pm
And Obama suffers unconscious bias against successful Black men. Of course, sexism exists, but so does racism. Neither candidate is running against a white male, they are running against each other in this primary. I am not bias against strong woman, but I am bias against candidates who supported the Iraq war, male or female.

Past Member (0)
Friday February 15, 2008, 6:33 pm
Oh Kathy I know about that McCain is one of the men out there dishing it.....Hillary has had her daughter insulted in the worst way...John McCain made a nasty joke "Why is Chelsea Clinton so ugly?
Because her father is Janet Reno." He said that!!

Now that is one low blow!!!!

I believe sexism is alive. No doubt about that but not just for Hillary.

Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Friday February 15, 2008, 6:41 pm
I disagree with you, Carlie boy........I feel men (black or white or any other color) DO have this "good ol' boy" brotherhood going - especially when it comes to seeing a woman best them!! You need to step into the 21st. centrury, sir. I'm 100% sure that John Edwards backed down to give Obama his vote-backers! No question whatsoever! And if you think Hillary was the only candidate backing the war in Iraq, you obviously forgot how patriotic and sympathetic even the most liberal US citizen was right after 9-11.

Charlie, Charlie......i"m betting you're one of those guys who think "the little woman" belongs barefoot & pregnant, too. LOL!

Darlene K (356)
Friday February 15, 2008, 6:45 pm
Charlie, bless your heart, but I don't buy that arguement anymore. The Intelligence Lied about most of it, eight years ago, and in my opinion, anyone still using that arguement is hiding behind it and using it, for other reasons.

Darlene K (356)
Friday February 15, 2008, 8:33 pm
Troll alert...don't feed

Ariel SunDolphin (276)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 12:25 am
IMHO Such a truly beautiful person she is. We Love You Hillary! Good Luck! :o)

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 2:13 am
So, Cate Groves... here is the logic I get from you:

if I criticise Hillary Clinton, I am sexist?

By the same logic, if I criticise Barack Obama I am racist?

And if I criticise John McCain, I am what? "A commie"? (Actually, I am a commie, that one would be true :P )

This is just silly. Lots of people are sexist: all this "men are more attractive if they build their muscles up, while women are more attractive if they don't build their muscles up and stay slim" and "men asking women out, men taking women out, giving them flowers, paying for dinner" (not the other way around) and all this talk of "women are [all] better at raising children than men" and "I prefer a man with a highpaid job to marry" and "men are biologically better at fighting than women are" [despite the knowledge of thousands of years of martial arts, as well as recent findings in developmental science, sports science, etc., as described in Colette Dowling's book "The Frailty Myth"] ...and all that other sexist rubbish.

Yes, lots of people are sexist (gender double-standards are sexist), even if they say tehy are not sexist and fool themselves into believing that they are not sexist.

However, we can assess people according to their beliefs and actions, rather than their gender - and this is the opposite of sexism... this is gender equality. And if we do this, we find that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are politically very similar, and John McCain is similar to both of them, but a bit more of a warmonger, more in favour of oppressing and exploiting people in other countries, and less compassionate to poor people and working class people within the U.S.A..

So there you have it. Your election choices: Turd Sandwich, Giant Douch or Bucket of Vomit.

Is this DEMOCRACY? This is the best political system in the world? Ha! What a FARCE!!! "America, bastion of democracy" - what a load of rubbish!

Many countries have some candidates who are far more egalitarian, environmentally friendly and pro-peace. Don't you have a Greens candidate in the U.S.? Isn't Ralph Nader running in this election? He would be ethically light years ahead of those other 3. And IF THIS IS A DEMOCRACY, THEN WHY CAN'T DENNIS KUCINICH RUN FOR PRESIDENT?

By the way, there is nothing patriotic about locking up innocent Muslims and Arabs in the U..A., and killing innocent people in other countries in revenge for what some dead plane hijackers did. The true patriots were people like Dennis Kucinich, who was against the invasion of Iraq. Dennis served the interests of the U.S. people by calling for sane resolutions, peaceful resolutions, resolutions which were not ones of violence and oppression that would increase terrorism. Thus he tried to preserve the U.S. dignity, and reputation in the eyes of the world. He tried to ensure U.S. security by reducing conflict, instead of increasing it as the majority of U.S. politicians did. They were not patriotic. They were national chauvinistic, ultra nationalistic, like the nazis were - and this national chauvinism, this ultra nationalism is a sentiment that ultimately results in harm to one's own country.

Well, go on, heed not what I have said. Elect Hillary or Barack Obama or John McCain. And watch as your country continues to have terrible inequality, widespread homelessness, school massacres and other violent crime, a huge and increasing incarceration rate (already the highest % in the world), and so on. Watch as your air, water and land continues to be polluted and devastated by pro-corporate policies. Watch as your "commader in chief" sends thousands more soldiers to their deaths in attempted imperialist oil grabs. And watch as the price of gasoline, electricity, food and other and basic goods and services in the U.S.A. goes up and up because of U.S. imperialist foreign policies backfiring, because of your imperialist invasions meeting fierce guerrrilla resistance, because of aggressive diplomacy that alienates oil-producing countries (such as Venezuela). Watch as the U.S. economy goes down the drain because your government's unworkable imperialist foreign policies cause a rejection of the IMF and World Bank, and a loss in faith in the dollar, and continue to induce the global transition to the Euro as currency of choice for oil transactions and currency reserves. Or perhaps you will not know what is going on because you get your information from the capitalist media.

Anyway, like Che said: 2, 3, many Vietnams!!! And a downfall of the U.S. empire. You are destined to live in an ex-empire, just another ordinary country, without the privileges or hegemony over other countries that you have now. That is what you will face if you elect any of those imperialist, bourgeois politicians to the presidency.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 2:16 am
Oops, I made a spelling error above. I wrote: "By the way, there is nothing patriotic about locking up innocent Muslims and Arabs in the U..A., and killing innocent people in other countries in revenge for what some dead plane hijackers did."

I meant to write: "By the way, there is nothing patriotic about locking up innocent Muslims and Arabs in the U.S.A., and killing innocent people in other countries in revenge for what some dead plane hijackers did."

Past Member (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 5:12 am
kathy, thanks for the article... hillary has my vote, as i see it she is the only one that can admit when she has made a mistake... i have yet to hear obama do that.. he has manipulated even the seating of people in his crowds, this was told by one of his ex-supports on a call-in news spot... who was unhappy because she is bi-racial and doesn't understand why he is not stating that but rather that he is the first black/african american running for president... and who wants mc cain in the presidency that would only mean another 100 years of war... let's face it... the only intelligent choice in the mix is hillary... the DNC doesn't want her because they can't run her around by the nose the way they will be able to do with obama... back in the kitchen.... hehehe... i am a sure that is where all men without gonads would like to see her...:)

Past Member (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:37 am
I am with you Karin on this one !
If she couldn't do it from within as a Senator and instead caved into almost every bill Bush wanted passed ,what makes people think she can bring the party's together as President ! Sorry but she has no more influence than Obama has in fact maybe less so that is a dead excuse for voting for her.
I vote according to conscience not gender or race and it appears to me that some people want to make this a gender issue when its not ! Its more a Ccharacter issue than anything !

Janice G (428)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:07 am
There are those who disliked Hilary from the beginning and she could never do anything they would approve of. There are those who have liked Obama from the beinning and he is on a roll. Sexist, racist...perhaps but it is also a matter of personality and charisma. We need to vote for the most qualified in spite of our bias, and we all have a bias. But if the choice is between hope and experience I don't think that is based on anything but gut instinct. Is that bias?

David S (55)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:21 am
I do not see her as a candidate worth considering only because she is simply very much part of the existing problem and a part of the existing power structures, and hence is not in any way the one that would actually bring real change or solutions. Her most ambitious program amounts to a forced handout that subsidizes the existing medical insurance industry that has done much to destroy the medical profession in this country. To me, that is not medical reform, it is instead more like rewarding the bank robber by letting him visit the bank to take more money or the way crooked politicians have always rewarded their sponsors by creating mandatory monopolies for their services. Does anyone really seriously believe she will end the war in Iraq? What about restoration of the U.S. constitution, given that she is the only Democratic candidate not to sign the pledge to do so. No, I see her, especially for the latter reason, unfit for high office period, as I would see any other candidate pushing the same programs and expressing the same things, regardless of age, race, or gender.

Lauren Stone (586)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:21 am
Firstly, Linda L., my CAT has at least twice the IQ as the idiot in charge now.
That being said, there is indeed still a stereotype against strong, powerful women. She is the stereotypical "ball busting, man eating, bitch", etc...Many men and some women fear aggressive women. There is a difference however between being aggressive and being ASSERTIVE. I think at this point Hilary has a good chance at being our next president. I just hope SHE knows the difference and doesn't feel she has to be 'one of the guys' to be taken seriously. I have my reservations, as I have heard her spout the same war mongering reteric as the others.
We need a leader strong enough to get us out of the war and keep us out of future conflicts. WHOEVER is willing to do that has my vote.

Past Member (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:23 am
Simon you have it right when you said Kucinich was the only patriot ! I voted for him and I only wished this country could have understood that Kucinich was the only honest real candidate who could have turned things around for this country .

I did want to add one thing about Hillary and the media . The media was very interested in promoting Hillary when she looked like the most viable candidate,, they only started to turn away from promoting her when they saw how well Obama was doing and how he inspired the crowds.I remember well all those debates that from the start focused on Hillary and left out Kucinich and Gravel and a few other lower tier candidates .The media is fickle they bet on the winning horse in the race and right now they believe its Obama ! Look what the media did to Kucinich ! They blacked him out because he wasn't pro Big corporations ,like the media and he had the cahona's to fight back in the courts when NBC and ABC blocked him from the debates, which I am sure they didn't like at all ! As I said before this is not a gender issue its a character issue with the voters and some people just don't like her voting record in the Senate .
I wonder how many of you know that Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan ? It was only Hillary and Kucinich who had already bowed out of the race long ago .So guess who had Michigan in the bag with no other candidate to contest her win ? Now how fair do you think that was for the people of Michigan the American people and Obama too ? Right now I think this whole voting system should be scrapped and we should start over with no delegates, no caucuses and no super delegates ,,just one hand written ballot ,one person one vote ! Lets get real this voting system is a sham !

Sheila K (127)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:43 am
I have to say that from what I've observed the media is against Hilliary and I believe it is because she is a woman....I haven't decide WHO I'm voting for BUT I'M DAMNED SURE IT'S NOT A REPUBLICAN! I agree with Cate, this country has a blatant and backward negative feeling about women. Why is it OK for her to be labeled a "bitch" and that's accepted, but if we were to call one of the MALE candidates a "bastard" there would be hell to pay? This society we live in, as far as I can see, has gone backwards and not forward in alot of ways and there certainly is a continued negative feeling about women. (sigh)

Thomas Panto (364)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 10:11 am
Does wisdom have a gender ?
Do we want the old bad habits elected back into Washington?
Think that the reason Obama is leading is because the old ways are failing.


Monica R (96)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 10:20 am
We as a country and as a world whole should bring idea's up to pace with the way things really are in the case of women and men being "submissive" and "dominate" over one another. Women are just as equally able to be assertive, smart, strong, and do the same damn things men can do in the work place. Clinton is being hated for many things. People even women today still think we are not ready for a woman president now and some believe never. Its ridiculous. I don't like the fact that Clinton isn't working with Obama for the presidency. She and he shouldn't be slandering each other but supportive of each other. They are both Demorcrates.
But to hate her bc she is a just as assertive and aggressive like a man in the same position is ludicris. PEOPLE WE NEED TO GET OVER IT. WE NEED TO TEACH OUR CHILDREN that they are BOTH EQUAL! Girls and do whatever men can do and they can do it equally well. We need to bring this type of thinking into the world and teach it to all.

Tim Redfern (581)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 10:37 am
Simon touched on this, but here's the
sad state of affairs we've got right
This is an historic time for us all,
with the two candidates for the Dem.
nomination being a woman and an African-
American man. But, instead of glorying
in this, as we should be, we're being
held down by childish arguments and
insinuated accusations:
Sen.Obama's supporters are being accused
of being misogynistic woman-haters, and
Sen.Clinton's supporters are being accused
of being racists.
As my friend Monica has said above me, could
we please just get over it?!
JOB ONE this fall MUST be to defeat John McCain!
Now, I'm not turning handsprings for either
Clinton or Obama, but I'm for damned-sure
voting for whichever becoms the nominee,
because we absolutely must defeat Senator
Hundred-Year-War from Arizona, no matter what!
This country will not survive another 4 years
of a Republican presidency, and besides that,
McCain is just plain scary!
If you liked Bushco, you'll LOVE McCain!
Thanks for a terrific post, Kathy-BG!
There's a green star coming your way!

Carla H (104)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 11:09 am
Well I have no doubt that there is a gender as well as racial bias in this country. I also have no doubt that a strong assertive woman will sooner or later be called all kinds of nasty names by men who are intimidated by her. That being said I think some of us are failing to acknowledge that if you vote for someone just because they are a woman, that makes you as much a sexist as someone who won't vote for a woman. I am seeing way too many women becoming absolutely irrational in their blind support of Hillary because she's female. They are reacting as if any criticism of her is an attack on all of us of the female persuasion. I don't dislike Hillary, I have defended her on numerous occassions in the past but I will NOT vote for her and it has everything to do with her politics and where her alliances lie. You cannot change a broken, corrupt system by electing an insider of that same system. She is in bed with the insurance and pharmaceutical companies, she is taking money and very public pats on the back from Rupert Murdoch, she has been way too supportive of Bush and his illegal policies in the past, and after knowing full well that Bush and Co. lied to us about the risks posed by Iraq, she voted to declare Iran's army a terrorist organization and thereby opened the door for Bush to invade them as well. Her husband is responsible for shoving NAFTA down our throats and because of it the middle class and labor unions of this country have been devastated. It also single handedly put tons of independent Latin American farmers out of business and left them with no alternative but to come pouring over our borders in search of work. Usually I wouldnt worry about the spouse of a candidate but in this case you know he is going to be extrememly involved with making policy so I think looking at his priorities as well as hers is fair game. Hasn't this country had enough of the Clinton/Bush racket? I know I have.

C G (63)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 11:20 am
Thanks for the insult. Believe it or not, everybody who disagrees with you or your choices is not doing so because they are subliminal automatons. I might actually believe Obama is a better choice because he is. You might believe Hillary is, and according to your logic, I should assume it's because you are truly a racist at heart. Of course, to engage is this infantile mud-slinging between supporters of two good candidates will ensure one result; John McCain as the next president. Be careful.

Timothy Brown (1)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 11:41 am
I believe it is possible to be against Hillary and not be a sexist. However when that choice is driven by the outright fear and disgust I see so much of, then I think we're talking plain old misogynistic, ignorant sexism. Senator Clinton is a decent intelligent woman. She is an excellent candidate. She has paid her dues. She has been an effective, strong senator. It would be a shame if someone would vote against her because she is a woman.

Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 12:03 pm
I'm so sorry that I actually put this question out there with Hillary's name attached to what I thought would be a gender-bias discussion. I am NOT, repeat...NOT bashing anyone's views on who they back as a candidate for the next president, and YES, I don't want it to be warmongering McCain - it's bad enough I have to deal with him and Jon Kyl as the senators in the state I live in!

Those (mostly white males) of you who have jumped on anyone trying to discuss the gender-bias issue on this or my other article, must really try to understand there is...FACT....very hostile (jealous?) bias against a strong, assertive, ambitious woman in this country. Hillary just happens to be the one in the news at the momemt, but she's NOT the only one who gets weird stares, caddy remarks, darn-right discrimination in the workplace, and is labeled a "bitch" if she DARES to run or is up against a male for the same job!! THAT, dear testosterone-driven men (and women), is what we're discussing here - not who we think will make the best president for the US. No one here in any comment can take away the words already thrown Hillary's way in this race. They're out there in the newspapers, airwaves, cable networks, and they're doing DAMNING work....and who are these newspapers, airwaves, and cable networks run by? White, corporate MEN. (Another fact.)

Charlie.....what century are you living in??? This is the 21st century.....let's not both to think I'd waste my time insulting you.....I'm busy earning a living!

Past Member (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 12:04 pm
Noted. I agree that gender bias is very much alive and well here in the US. Whether you agree with Hillary or not; ANY strong woman would be considered a threat to men and a lot of women. It's a serious problem, not only in the political arena, but in everyday life. This is something that our country MUST get over! Also, I don't care what any candidate says about ending the war, withdrawing troops, etc. They are all wanting to get ellected! How many times has a candidate LIED to get voters? "NO NEW TAXES!"?

Susan L (118)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 12:37 pm
Unfortunately, Hillary is up against the "old boy's club." She is a strong woman and we strong women are looked at as a threat to the "old boys club" in the US. I think it is a shame, but it is a battle I've fought and it is NOT easy. Men MUST get over it and realize that strong women are here to stay. They must realize that there are weak men and women stronger than some men. That is the way the world works. They just need to get over it.

Elle J (276)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 12:44 pm
Noted! We had better get it together on a strong woman bias. We need someone who can begin to clean up this mess in Washington and throughout the world. GWB is a man and look where that got us. Need I say more?

O O O (143)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 1:04 pm
The media is fickle they bet on the winning horse in the race and right now they believe its Obama ! Look what the media did to Kucinich ! They blacked him out because he wasn't pro Big corporations ,like the media and he had the cahona's to fight back in the courts when NBC and ABC blocked him from the debates, which I am sure they didn't like at all !
Yes, Kucinich would have been the TRUE candidate of change! His ideas were progressive and visionary in every way. Too bad that he's light years ahead of his time... If the country "walked its talk" about truly wanting fundamental change in government, he would have been the way to go.
There is no dubut if you listen to what Kuncinich himslef said,& saw who did what,how,that he did not just return to his current job willingly,but to retain what power he has to use has he sees fit.
He was shut out& he has showen by his actions he is intelligent enough to both know&then take what profit he can from it.

You claim to want the Power you do have:Show it,now. You have the ability to WRITE IN the person you want:David Kuncinch for President as a write in-True POWER of The People,in a way those in charge behind them turely HATE &passonatly FEAR,should it so strongly & obviously show.
Forget the Sex War mongering-flexs your Real Power lest you lose it,for once lost,the loss may be permenate.

Strickly Vagina for President:Get one compiedant,not in Bed with those There Now,as an entire cliquck.

NOT Either of the Hillaries,one now out,or one seeking this office!

McCain:No! Not if you want to even continue to have these discuions here,becasue he & Firngold did fully make all this a Felony to do,60days before an election,which was then,thank your choice of Deity-struck down by the U.S. Supreeme Court-but only this part of that bad bill.
He is anothoer on of "Them". He too has too much money to be one of "Us".

But,in fairness to note the way this system does work,one running for President does need to have much money once you do get into office,to be able to Wine & Dine people the way a President does need to do,for anything which can not be directly atrrbutable to the Office of The President,& you want to have it,let alone host it,you muxt fully pay for all of it,in all respects-fully,YOURSELF,by YOURSELF.

See book:"Upstairs,At The White House". A real eye opener as to some who "Run" this Country,& what "They"do think about them that just think they do!

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 1:10 pm
Well, getting active with these comments. Sheila K....., you got it Right! CNN, MSNBC, and the rest of the media have very negative on Hillary. I only picked Hillary as the best candidate to do the job, but I am actually feeling bad for the woman, now. The media praises Obama, constantly, but never fails to point out every flaw of Hillary or generate any "alleged" theory they can find. Anyone who REALLY can see TRUTH, sees through Barack's gift of speech, and sees he is just another politician. Indigos of this world need to speak Truth, in an enlightened way with wisdom.

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 1:27 pm
Tom.., bless your heart. Yes! Although, I will surely be ill, if I have to drop my ballot for Barack, I will be voting for whomever gets the Democratic Nomination. The Republicans have fought every legislation that I work hard for in my activism for human rights, animal rights, and the environment.

Faith M (161)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 2:02 pm
Wow YA'll are awesome here- great points good info and lots to think about- it's so true I very much Like Hillary -But I strongly disagree with many of her choices and while it is good she can "change her mind " when supplied with "new info" she seems to be always doing that- her constantly reshaping her political image reflects an uncertainty within her to me and a persona that is not real-now we all know that all politicians do this but the gender bias is very clear here -so for Hillary it's a damned if you do damned if you don't situation- perhaps the problem is when a woman tries to behave just like a man would be percieved to do in a male playing enviroment. We are not men and we should not be trying to emulate men's behavior in leadership- anyhow theres my thought on the matter

. (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 2:46 pm
I don't know but, I'm going to step into this any way I seen where Obama said that Bush was doing the right thing when he was selling weapong to the Philstines, Any body who agrees with Bush to me puts up red flags. Then Hilllary I don't really know about that either nor any of the rest of them for they will all stand there and lie till there blue in the face. They make big promises and do nothing, I have seen it over and over again. So what is going to make a difference this time? Same problems different face. Are they some super hero thats going to fix every thing? No. Its just going to fall in there lap and it would take years up on years to fix. I believe that a person who has the love of The Lord in there heart would make a good leader for our Country and this my friends is how it will make it. Thanks Kathy noted

Cal W (37)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 2:47 pm
Another Clinton, McCain and Obama, what a choice the Democrats and Republicans have givin me. The corporate media killed off the only candidate worth voting for (Kucinich). McCain scares the hell out of me, (he has no problem staying in Iraq for the next 100 years) !! And after having so many years of Clintons (NAFTA) and bushes (Wars), watching corporations grow more powerful and the average citizen of the United States lose any power they once had, I have only one choice left, Obama, (just maybe he really is for change). By the way, I have no problem voting for a woman, just not the one they're trying to sell us, after all, I lived with a VERY headstrong woman for 30 years and found she made much better choices in our life together than I did.
Sincerely, Cal....

Bill McGlone (103)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 3:13 pm

Past Member (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 6:06 pm
Hey Kathy!

I appreciate the article on our "unconscious bias against women". It is something that has turned my stomach in this political season to see the overtly and even more subtle sexist attacks against Hillary Clinton. I'm glad that she is in the race and is strong enough to hang in there despite these attacks and bias. We, as a society, would have missed an important opportunity to confront and examine our sexism and bias against strong women without her candidacy.

That said, and having confronted and wrestled with my own unconscious sexist conditioning, I cannot ultimately support Hillary Clinton for president because I so strongly disagree with her Healthcare Plan (a far cry from legitimate single payer universal healthcare or real healthcare reform), her economic and foreign policy positions and more, as well as her loyalty to and support for and from big corporate interests. By the same token I also strongly disagree with the positions of Barack Obama and John McCain (who are also pawns for the "corporatocracy) as well. I have never been a Democrat or a Republican and do not support the two-party "duopoly". I am hoping that Cynthia McKinney does run as an independent or Green Party candidate so that I have someone that I can vote for with a somewhat clear conscience. I do not endorse the voting of the "lesser of two evils" mentality and never consider my vote for an independent or third party candidate as a wasted vote, or as a "spoiler" vote.

It would be nice if "we the people" here in the United States would actually use our considerable power as consumers, workers, taxpayers and even voters (if you believe that our elections and electoral system are fully free & fair) to force a truly democratic society here at home. As Noam Chomsky points out in his article, "We Own The World", 'Peasants in Bolivia can do it, we can obviously do it here."

Thanks, Thomas

Thanks again for sharing the article.


Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 6:46 pm
Thomas M., I must Agree to Disagree with you and Noam Chomsky. "We" don't own the World, if we did..., we wouldn't have such a hard time finding a President, more people would do more in their communities, more people wouldn't buy all these products on the shelves manufactured by these corporate mongers, and more, more, more. Not enough Americans Care Enough to do Enough. Maybe this year they do, since our dollar just became worth less than a dollar.

Here is where I see a big difference, in my opinion. The ones who DO care...., seem to be in one of two sectors...."We the people" should use our power as consumers, workers, taxpayers and even voters to demand a truly democratic society, in the United States----or----"We the people" should use our power as consumers, workers, taxpayers, ACTIVIST FOR HUMAN RIGHTS/WELFARE, ACTIVIST FOR ANIMAL RIGHTS/WELFARE, SENIORS WELFARE, VETERANS RIGHTS AND WELFARE, AND ENVIRONMENTAL WELFARE, and even voters to deman a truly democratic society, in the United States.

Now there is a huge....difference. One side REALLY depends on CONGRESS to get off their rumps to DO SOMETHING, because humans and animals are dying and suffering, right now. Not tomorrow or next year...., Right now. Child trafficking is happening right now..., a young boy or girl is being ordered up off a menu in one of our wonderful states. All this is webbed together. So, to NOT VOTE for the PARTY THEORY, hurts both sides, because...., either way..., you deal with legislation, moreso to help others besides yourself and your family......, and you deal with Congress and the Republicans and Democrats. To IGNORE the "LESSER OF TWO EVILS" would be very unwise. There are only two evils bickering and stalling them darn important legislations in Congress...TWO. Now, this election year might have woken up this nation, finally. Maybe we will see some Truth and better choices in the future. The turnout at the polls have shouted out to the government....., WE ARE AWAKE, if anything.

I have no problems with someone voting for someone listed on the ballot and is fully committed to be President. It is the write in part, I have a problem with....., alot. Writing in a vote for Elmo, is a wasted vote! I don't care how sincere it is..., just my opinion. Anyone who wants to go with the Green Party or Independent party, has every freedom to do so. However, I would view it as a "spoiler" vote, if this person didn't even have 1% of the popular vote, of the nation. Again, my opinion.

Carol W (119)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 6:51 pm

Worse than man or woman, what I see through all of these comments is 'Party Lines'.
Why aren't we comparing Obama to R. Paul whom Kucinich leaned towards.??

Thomas thanks for mentioning the green party. I greatly respect Cynthia McKinney!
That is a strong woman. Not like Hillary.
She will spend money like as if it grew on the, 'Bushs'. pun intended.


Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:02 pm
Carol W... , ok you must have not understood anything I wrote, but..., if Cynthia McKinney was President, how the heck would she manage to deal with the Republican Party Ideal and the Democratic Party Ideal. Now, you might not like it, and others might not like it...., but millions do, and big big money is behind them. So, they aren't going anywhere for the next four years, at least. This IS THE REALITY.

This passion is wonderful, but the time is not now, in my opinion. The nation is now, just starting to wake up.

Carol W (119)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:05 pm

As First Lady Hillary went down in history to have spent more money than any first lady in history!
Beginning with 90 days in Germany to learn their health care system. She had with her, 60 secretaries and employees for the full 90 days.

McKinney has been featured in a full-length documentary titled American Blackout.
Among other things:

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:25 pm
You didn't answer my question.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:26 pm
Yes. If you are here in Care2 because you care about our environment, peace, workers' rights, WOMEN'S RIGHTS and other human rights, then you won't vote for the corporate candidates Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain. If you care about those causes, then you will vote Green or Socialist.

If you elect one of those corporate candidates (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain), then we will be back here again after the elections doing activism for these causes, much the same as now. Why? Because those corporate candidates will do very little for those causes, including women's rights:

If you elect one of those corporate candidates, women will continue to suffer a similar amount of domestic violence, sexual harassment and sexual violence and so on within the U.S., because those candidates will do very little to solve those problems.

If you elect one of those corporate candidates, then they will continue U.S. support for brutal regimes (such as the misogynist regime in Saudi Arabia), and U.S. corporate imperialism and exploitative neo-colonial economic relations will continue to cause suffering to huge numbers of women in Third World countries.

If you elect one of those corporate candidates, then they will continue their proxy wars in which women and girls suffer the most (such as the war in Colombia in which the U.S. supports the Uribe government and their allied paramilitaries who commit a large amount of sexual violence and other human rights abuses to women).

If you elect one of those corporate candidates, then they will continue their imperialist wars in which women and girls suffer the most; and every year, tens of thousands of women and girls will continue to be killed and maimed and raped by soldiers and suffer increased fundamentalist oppression (as has happened in Iraq) and increased danger for women (as has happened in Afghanistan).

So please, please vote for the Socialists or Greens.

By the way, why don't you people in the U.S. change your system to a preferential voting system? That is what we have here in Australia. It means that when people vote Green or Socialist, if the Green or Socialist candidate does not get elected, then those people's votes are transferred to their 2nd preferences (e.g. Labor party or Democrats).

While the U.S. still continues its "first past the post" voting system, I would still vote for the Greens or Socialists, because there is very little difference in policy between the Republican and Democrat candidates.

Dave Kane (308)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:28 pm
I'll add my 2 (where's that cents sign?!?) . . .

Males, especially southern males generally have a more 'stay in the kitchen, barefoot and beautiful' attitude, but this should be balanced by women wanting one of their own in there.

Go Barack ; )

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:30 pm
Oh please, don't get me started on Australia's problems..., your telling us?????
Ok, yeah. Much Love and Peace Simon....Namaste, Dar

Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:45 pm
The reason people are talking about women be the leser sex They are blaming others (they are the ones who carry these thoughts) People grow up if you are seeing others as being sexist are picking on women You must be the one who is being
I am votinfg for Obama (not blindly as some would think) I will not vote for Clinton weather she is a man or a woman Yes Clinton has her good points and there are alot of women who are voting for her Why? She is a woman- Married Bill I donot believe we should be electing a President based on gender not because Bill was our president We can not go back in time (90's) ther are no do overs It is time for the Bush's and the Clinmton's to go home (The Bush's and the Clinton's are more alike than people think We all like Clinton and most of us dislike Bush but bottom line both of them will to any thing win (honest or not) We do not make rules one day ans break them when it doesn't help us

I hope people are waking up and voting for Obama is waking up and moving on Voting for Clinton is not Playing the same game letting the Bushs and the Clintons rule us that is not waking up Change can be quiet scarey for most Change can be wonderful History was not meant to stay the same I believe women will get there chance (there is no crying in baseball and double that in polictics

The Republicans wold love to run against Clinton (they know how to play the game with Clinton) and it will be there best chance to stay in power know if it is Obama they donot have a chance They donot know how to play the game of change,Hope respect they would be like fish out of water :)

. (0)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:54 pm
i vote for the animals

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:59 pm
Sorry mamabear, I have to Agree to Strongly Disagree with you. Many of us are voting for Hillary, because in our opinion she is the best to handle this huge mess domestically and on the foreign front. In addition, Hogwash on your theory of the Republicans not having a chance with Obama, and so brilliant with Clinton. No my dear, Barack is the green one here, not Hillary. We know everything about Hillary...heh, the nation doesn't with Barack. So Your views and opinions are just that your opinions.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 7:59 pm
Surveys consistently show that the majority of people in the U.S. actually have political views that are similar to the Greens, not similar to the Democrats or Republicans.

So why do the Democrats and Republicans get in?

Well, its mainly due to the fact that most people get their "news" about politics from the propaganda that is the capitalist media (corporate media plus "PBS"-type media). And the capitalist media gives almost 100% coverage to the politics of the Democrats and the Republicans, and almost 0% coverage of the Greens and Greens politics.

The Democrats and Republicans and their politics that everyone knows about are very similar, so most people think that they have very little choice. Also, the capitalist media in the U.S.A. does not focus much on policies at all - it's more of a celebrity popularity contest, based on superficial irrelevant issues, rather than a vote on policies. For these reasons, some people don't vote. And other people don't know about the Greens, so they vote for one of the 2 parties that they know.

There is another significant factor that affects how people vote: some of those who do know about Greens politics think that if they vote Green, then they will be taking away their vote for one of the parties that is a "real contender", so they vote Democrat, so that their vote will stop the Republicans (who they think would be even worse than the Democrats).

So I recommend that we use and promote the alternative media. And I recommend changing the U.S. electoral system to a preferential voting system as we have in Australia (without those "electoral colleges" that reduce voter choice in the U.S.A.).

(With the preferential voting system, and compulsory voting, almost 100% of eligible voters vote in Australia and the Australian government more closely represents the wishes of its people than the U.S. government does. E.g. Australia has a more egalitarian education system, health care system and welfare system than those of the U.S. - and this is what peopel in both countries want, according to surveys.)

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:03 pm
Hi Darlene,
you wrote: "Oh please, don't get me started on Australia's problems..., your telling us?????"

What do you mean? Go on, I challenge you to educate me about women's rights as practiced by the Australian government - if you know anything about that topic. :P

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:04 pm
No, the ideal is to have NO PARTYS

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:09 pm
Well, Simon..., I really have my hands full with the corruption in my country's government, that I really don't want to use the energy to discuss your country's corruption in government, including prior officials. That is kind of Noise to me. My strong Light of service to mankind is to the world, but truly this election deals with the United States of America, and not Australia's problems and flaws.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:21 pm
Anyway, Darlene, I sense that you are avoiding the points that I made by your changing of the topic to threatening to criticise Australia. Go ahead and criticise Australia if you want -but just know that it shows that you have no adequate response for the points I made, see?

My main point is that if you elect Hillary Clinton, then the result will be pretty much the same as electing Barack Obama or John McCain: the same U.S. assaults on women's rights in the U.S.A. and by U.S. imperialism around the world will continue. Therefore, please vote Green or Socialist.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:26 pm
Hi Darlene, having no parties is YOUR ideal, not "the ideal".

Political parties are people joining together for a common purpose that they agree with. People united, organised, taking action for a common purpose, are much more effective than people acting alone.

Anyway, if you believe in no parties, then you will vote for an independent candidate, and not for Hillary Clinton, won't you? ; )

Carol W (119)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:33 pm

Our politicans are schooled in Psychological manipulation. They have always devised means of division, hate, fear. This is skimming if not avoiding the issues.

Unfortunately, I agree that the general public who does not follow politics are the masses being psyched into these superficial divisions.

And work places have the same comprehension or attitude.
I was in sales. I did exceedingly well In the middle of an elablorate S.A. dinner I was surrounded by men and their wives. I was asked, " Who did you come with"? ha ha ha

Yoko Ono said it best in 1973, " Women's Lib is for Men"

Anitra Freeman (35)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 8:50 pm
There are valid criticisms of all candidates, and there are invalid ones. Hillary should not be condemned for being a strong, assertive, outspoken woman. She should be given credit for working with Senators on both sides of the aisle in Congress. I am still not going to vote for her. I don't have any problem with strong women: I have problems with Hillary Clinton.

I trust Barack Obama to protect the rights of women more than I trust Hillary Clinton to protect the rights of poor people.

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:02 pm
Simon..., now, play this word game all you want hun, but, it changes nothing. You aren't even an American, so there is only so much energy I will use on this with you. I know you must understand that much......

So, I would naturally listen to you and realize you don't understand how our Congress REALLY functions, and also be baffled that you uphold Australia as an EXAMPLE to the USA, when....they aren't much better, heh. We have more than assault on women's rights going on over here, my friend. MUCH MORE. That is the big problem, it isn't just one sector, just one area, or one problem. Dang it isn't even two or just three. The USA is unbalanced across the board.........., it is a HUGE mess, both domestically, socially, and with our foreign affairs. Geezzz, we went back decades in our foreign relations, just pityful.

For the next four years, we REALLY need someone who knows how these foreign countries OPERATE. I really, really wish I could tell you why...., but, I CAN'T. Just be the Best Human Being you can Be.

Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:06 pm
Darlene I strongley disagree and your opionions are just that your's If you are voting for Clinton because you know everything about her then youm must agree that even tho people think Obama is green he to has worked with people helping them He has a very strong grassroots for the people He knows how to lead and he has found hope and is able to get people to work with each other and bring themselves up with respect When it gets down to it you are incharge you make the world a better place it is up to you The man is a leader gov. a sentor and so was Hillary and she has spent alot of her time working for the good of the people just as Obama has She is no more expericed than Obama they both have spent there lives working and helping others one is a man one is a woman one is the past one is the future It sounds like you and many others are are thinking just because she is married to Bill she is more capable to handle things in the white house than Obama As I see it she is alittle green herself If you take Bill out of the picture she is no more ready than Obama You are one of the people who are unconsciously bias

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:12 pm
Hi Darlene,
you threatened to criticise Australia's problems. Then you said you don't have time to do it, but then you did it in the same post. So what will it be? Will you discuss it or won't you? Since you have criticised Australia's political system, and "problems", I will respond:

Yes, Australia has serious problems, as do all capitalist countries. The U.S. system in comparison is much more unequal and violent, and causes much more suffering both in domestically, and around the world. To me, this is not a subject of "national pride". What I say has nothing to do with which country I am from. I prefer the systems in Venezuela, Cuba and Sweden to Australia's system, anyway - which makes clear my lack of national chauvinism.

I don't understand why you attacked Australia, Darlene. The fact that preferential voting is more democratic, and the fact that voting is compulsory in Australia (and therefore almost 100% of eligible voters vote), and the fact that for years Australia's government has more closely represented its people's wishes than the U.S. government has (in terms of health care, education and welfare), has nothing to do with whether or not Australia has problems (as every capitalist country does). To threaten to criticise Australia's problems is merely to introduce a red herring, an irrelevant distraction from the topic at hand.

However, I want to make clear 2 things:

I am not trying to avoid discussing Australia's problems. I will discuss them if you do - especially how Australia's system relates to sexism and women's rights. Perhaps this way, you would see how a less corporate, more socialist system gives women more equality.

And yes, Australia does have problems, including sexism. And I promoted and voted for the parties that are committed to solving those problems - the Greens and the Socialist Alliance. And I recommend that people in every country do the same thing, whether that means voting for a man or a woman, instead of voting for corporate politicans (like Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or John McCain), who will perpetuate abuses of women's rights and other problems.

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:25 pm
mamabear, I smiled when I read this...., "You are one of the people who are unconsciously bias", I love you as another human being, I embrace you as a fellow American, have NO IDEA whom I am and if you knew a sliver of my Light...., heh, you would be choking on those words.

Darlene K (356)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:33 pm
Simon you have criticized Hillary, Obama, the two large American Political Parties, every posts of a friend of mines who was asking for signatures for her petition for her plight in another country...., you HAD to this very same thing. I mean. Play your game, I watched it already. I am not interested, no matter how innocent you are trying to act. You seem to love a revolutionary ideal, Simon. And...., it seems like you will stir that pot in any country on any online forum you can find. That is your choice, but, I don't have to engage with you.

I don't know how many more ways to explain this to you, good man. The WISE thing would be to Agree to Disagree on whatever you are looking for....

MsR S (189)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:38 pm
It really amazes me that people totally accept the fact that BaOb is for nuclear power, liquid coal, etc...- total disruptors of the environment.
To say that he's against war is conjectural, since he wasn't there to vote at that time.
Any president in this kind of government run by the corporations, is just a figure head anyway so, I vote for Hillary as the one w/ more grit.
There's definitely a bias against women in this men's world. Hope it changes as more women get into positions of visible power.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 9:50 pm
Ok, Darlene, you think Australia is not an example for the U.S.A. to follow?

Here are just a few points. I have plenty more where they come from:

Has the U.S. made a very public government campaign to stop violence against women? Australia has.

The U.S.A. has 1 in 6 children in poverty, as well as widespread homelessness.

The U.S.A. incarcerates about 1% of its population - a higher % than any other country.

The U.S. health system is notorious. 40 million people without health insurance! In Australia, the government provides everyone with free health care..

The U.S. education system... hmmm... it is of notoriously low quality (one of the lowest in the first world), and on top of that, there is all that school violence and rug-dealing. Also, do your tertiary students get welfare to live on while they study, so that poor people can study? In Australia they do.

Australia has lower income taxes than the U.S.A. - but the U.S.A. does not use that excess for its people, it uses them for its military. The U.S. engages in a higher military spending than any other country. In fact, the U.S. engages in higher military spending than the rest of the world COMBINED.

The U.S. is the biggest arms dealer in the world, often selling (and even donating) arms to regimes that brutally suppress their own people and/or invade other countries.

The U.S. is the most warmongering country in the world: since 1945, the U.S. has attempted to overthrow 50 governments, many of them democracies. In the process, 30 countries have been attacked and bombed, causing the loss of millions of lives.

And the U.S.A. has supported brutal regimes in numerous countries around the world, including: Afghanistan, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, South Vietnam, Turkey, Venezuela, and Zaire. The result has been the deaths of millions more people. (Some of those U.S.-supported regimes have been overthrown by their people, and replaced with democratic governments - with no thanks to the murderous imperialist U.S. foreign policy.)

The blood of tens of millions of people is on the hands of the Uncle Sam. When it comes to problems, Australia is not even in the same ballpark. It really would be a much more peaceful and egalitarian world if the U.S.A. stopped trying to export its "democracy" by force and intimidation, and instead started listening to people with more peaceful, more eqalitarian systems.

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday February 16, 2008, 10:29 pm
Hi Darlene, I criticised John McCain (and Bush in relevant threads), too, please don't leave that out, or else you give the impression that I am rightwing.

Yes, I criticise pro-corporate, anti-people politicians everywhere, including the majority of Democrat and Republican politicians, and in Australia, this means the majority of politicians for the 3 main parties: the Labor Party, the National Party and the misnamed "Liberal Party". I criticise pro-corporate, anti-people politicians everywhere, without prejudice about which country they are in.

I am not "playing a game", Darlene. I am not "acting innocent". Don't slander me, Darlene. It is destructive and against the Care2 Code of Conduct, and if you continue doing it, I will flag you.

As for that "petition for a person's plight in another country", do you mean the anti-FARC petition? I don't recall commenting under it. However, I did hear about that petition, and I do criticise it. My criticism is that focussing on FARC alone ignores the fact that the enemies of the FARC - the U.S.-supported rightwing Colombian government and its allied paramilitaries commit 2/3 of the human rights violations in Colombia.

I also call for a peaceful solution to the conflict in Colombia, instead of the pro-war "smash FARC" line that many anti-FARC talkers advocate.

I also remind you that the leftwing picked up the gun in the first place (forming FARC) in order to defend against violent oppression by the oligarchy and their rightwing government. And then in the 1980s, the leftwing guerrillas of FARC tried to stop the war by putting down their guns and entering democratic politics, but the rightwing government and its paramilitaries massacred thousands of them. Therefore, I say that FARC cannot engage in politics in Colombia unless the rightwing government and their paramilitaries stop their violent oppression of people.

Is it "bad" that I added this information in the interests of giving people the WHOLE TRUTH? Why the hell do you refer to it as if I was "doing the wrong thing"?

Damn right I love revolution. The world is in a terrible mess, with the first world draining $500 billion net worth of wealth from the Third World each year while over 11 million children die each year due to poverty, 700 million people suffering from malnutrition, 1.5 billion people in danger of disease because they have no access to clean drinking water, with the U.S. pushing exploitative economic policies on Third World nations and supporting numerous brutal regimes, with the U.S. invading every country that it wants to and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of people in the name of "freedom".

The world is in a terrible mess, and I am committed to changing it. The capitalist system is inherently unequal and the only way to end many of these problems is to replace capitalism with a more democratic system. Revolution does not need to be violent, and a number of revolutions have been pretty nonviolent - we can elect socialist governments - and real socialist revolutionaries are only violent when they are attacked by the powers that be and must defend themselves.

The world is messed up, and I am committed to changing it: for our environment and for human rights for EVERYONE, not just for privileged people. And when I say human rights, I include the right to food, health care and housing as detailed in the U.N.'s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Anitra Freeman (35)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 12:32 am
Darlene, I am certainly aware of how far this country, and the world, has yet to go to see equal rights for women and men. I also know how far we have to go until black men or women have equal rights, equal opportunity, equal treatment with you and I. We have a long way to go until an atheist can be elected to the presidency; we haven't even reached the point where anything except a right-wing Christian is even mentioned as having a religion. Latino men make less, on the average, than white women do, Darlene. A Muslim, man or woman, is in a lot more danger in this country, every day, than you or I. And speaking of all the snide comments about us women, how does a gay man usually get characterized?

And with all of that, do you know how it compares to life in the 50s? Unless you are lying about your age, you don't.

A lot of the women who worked to make life better for you are voting for Hillary Clinton, many of them for the same reasons you are. A lot of those women are NOT voting for Hillary Clinton, for the same reasons I am not voting for her. I will not disparage the feminism of the women voting for Hillary. I would appreciate it if you did not disparage the feminism of those of us who are voting for Barack Obama.

Please remember that, after the Democratic convention, we are all going to have to pull together behind one candidate, to defeat John McCain. Every bit of mud we sling at each other now is ammunition for John McCain in the final leg of the run.

And after January 2009, we are all going to have to pull together to hold the next president's feet to the fire -- whoever he or she may be -- and make the changes we are all excited about actually happen. Because ultimately it is never the president who changes the country, it is the people on the street. And we're not going to do it by fighting each other. Struggle, conflict, calling each other on our sh!t, yes; all that is constructive. Demonizing each other is not.

Polarization freezes brain cells.

Elizabeth W (20)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 7:39 am
Hate to say it, but the reality I see unfolding is that many will vote for Obama for the simple fact he is not a woman. That the more moderate republicans will be willing to cross over for a man, regardless of race (even if they are racist) than a woman...period...and that democrats and republicans, both men and women alike, on the fence, that just want to end the regime see this, and just want to end the mess most assuredly any way they can, will vote for Obama ("after all he is pretty white for a black man"--seriously heard someone saying this---a woman)
My biggest shock is that we just can not get these men out of office. When you see protest signs saying "Why can't we find anyone to give Bush a blow-job?" just shows how much spin can bring someone about lies and torture? Grr!

But yes, I think men typically have more wiggle room to screw up, and sadly..women are likely to stab each other in the back. And though I strive my best to be tolerant of all religions, I find it frightening and twisted, that many Christians will promote war, supposedly in the name of their God, to promote peace...I just don't get it. And then the abortion card is played to sway women of belief...If there were adequate health care, and education, and nurturing were truly valued...the rate would decrease drastically. Then there is money and ties. There are a lot of different forces at play here, but I do think when it comes down to it, on the whole, sadly in the nation in which I am part(maybe even more so than in some places, and sadly worse for most women of the world)Woman is the Nigger of the World. The only way she seems to be able to pull out of that role is to become a tough skinned bitch or to be incredibly seductive without offending other women...just a twisted scenario for which anyone to break free.

It would be lovely if being a tyrant would get one ousted, and that it would not be WRONG to be nurturing. Being a mom, I know you need to be balanced. I have had to fight for my right to parent as I choose, and can get quite uppity, thank you. You mess with my kids..and I am psychologically prepared to rip your eyes out.

Personally, I would like to see Gore cross over to the Green Party :) (then maybe some folks would even know they exist..and they might have an actual chance of winning)

Gore goes Green Music Gala?
(That could sway Obamas Ipod crowd)

Stephen Hannon (203)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 8:13 am
Woman voters may be the new "silent majority" in America. I have noticed that Hillary has come under some severe attacks. Not only from her political rivals but from the Republicans as well. I can understand the reason the Republicans don't want to see Cllinton win the election, but not the Democrats or Independents.

Many women identify with Clinton, and many do not. There appears to be many undecided woman voters who could swing the nomination to Barack Obama. Independents generally vote Republican but I don't believe this is going to be true in the next election. Everyone is fed up with the Republican part, including Conservative Republicans who are saying it's better to vote for a Democrat rather than vote for John McCain.
When have we ever heard this before? When Bush pundit Ann Coulter says she's going to vote for a Democrat there must be something that this ultra conservative doesn't like about McCain. Perhaps she knows the truth about McCain while he was a POW and cooperated with the enemy? The truth is McCain was not ever tortured. And the V/C claimed he was Vietnamese... Go figure.

Hillary Clinton has a tough road to walk down, and there are times I think that Bill hurts her more than helps her. People still have not forgot the Monica Lewinsky affair, and the Republicans will not ever let it die. Whenever they get in trouble the first thing they bring up is the long ago Lewinsky case. As if it really does them some good, it doesn't. But it is something that still clouds Hillary, and I won't be surprised if she get "swift boated" by Bill affair with Lewinsky. If she does win the nomination I hope she can withstand the heat from the attacks that are going to be launched by the Republicans. They will do anything to win, and I mean anything. Watch for massive vote fraud in '08.

Carol W (119)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 8:14 am
LOL Darlene, our post must have crossed at the same time.
American Blackout chronicles the recurring patterns of disenfranchisement
witnessed from 2000 to 2004 while following the story of Georgia Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney,
who not only took an active role in investigating these election debacles
but also found herself in the middle of one after publicly questioning the Bush Administration about the 9-11 terrorist attacks.

Some call Cynthia McKinney a civil rights leader among the ranks of Shirley Chisholm and Malcolm X. Others call her a conspiracy theorist and a 'looney.' American Blackout gains unprecedented access to one of the most controversial and dangerous politicians in America and examines the contemporary tactics used to control our democratic process and silence political dissent

You are right about the reality of our election and what they have narrowed our opportunities too.

Ronald Reagan said: “Government is not the solution to our problem, government is the problem.” (He's right, but no, I don’t believe he believed it.)


Tsandi Crew (95)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 8:50 am
Only in countries that have been Calvinized like ours.

Kim K (12)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 9:07 am
If no one has yet seen the Robin Morgan piece from last week...
She powerfully names the dynamic that she sees going on in this political contest.
(In a word, misogyny.)

Even if you're for Obama, its absolutely worth checking out.


Anitra Freeman (35)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 11:19 am
I'm trying not to get polarized, but it's very very hard. I think that Hillary's supporters are going to get Hillary defeated, if they all talk like the ones here. Personally, I'm fed up with being characterized as a misogynist for daring to criticize a WOMAN candidate, and a brainless swooning groupie for supporting Obama.

It is inaccurate to say that George W. Bush has an I.Q. of 80. That does not mean that all criticism of George W. Bush should be dismissed. Congressman Larry Craig's sexuality is nobody's business and I vote to end all bathroom sting operations (for multiple reasons); that does not mean that I support Larry Craig's politics. A lot of the criticism of Hillary Clinton is sexist, unfair and false. We should all speak up against the false charges and point out the misogyny; I agree with that. That does not mean that a vote for Hillary is a blow for feminism, OR that a vote for Obama is a vote for patriarchy.

Hillary Clinton is a top-down, patriarchal manager; she is no more a feminist than Margaret Thatcher was. To vote for her just because she is a woman unfairly treated is as anti-feminist an argument as I've heard in 50 years.

Thomas Panto (364)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 2:10 pm

Some people will look at a kitten and see only a litter box.
Changing their mind is as hard as changing an ''italian jew'' into a ''german christian''.

Incapacitated minds will ''see'' only what they have CHOSEN to LOOK for.
They are incapable of seeing the pros and cons in front of them.

They see Black and White, Male and Female as One and the Other.
But don't blame the Underfunded children of America.
The destruction of their mind was INTENTIONAL.


daniella r (76)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 3:11 pm
Noted and agree totaly.

Kim K (12)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 3:27 pm
Anita wrote, "A lot of the criticism of Hillary Clinton is sexist, unfair and false. We should all speak up against the false charges and point out the misogyny; I agree with that. That does not mean that a vote for Hillary is a blow for feminism, OR that a vote for Obama is a vote for patriarchy. "

Yes, exactly, Anita. As a Clinton supporter, this IS the issue that we are examining here. Why the insane /irrational deluge of violence/hatred directed toward this one woman?
Its one thing to have a disagreement with one's political philosphy/views. Its another to direct unbelievable hatred towards one individual. Its "logically" unfathomable. And thus, the dialogue, discussion, and inquiry regarding cultural misogyny.
I'm certain that most of the people responding on this forum are not in the above group of misogynist hate-mongers. But, it seems that much of the media propogates this energy and creates this view, and so.. the discussion.
I am all for an intelligent discussion/disagreement regarding potential Presidential candidates. This has not been what the media has been doing. This has been the tenor of any of the many political blogs that one reads. Just go to They do not even post my thoughts (I've tried 4 times), while they seem to have a surplus of inane comments. Who knows why? It is because I'm a Clinton supporter? ( Who knows...just makes one wonder..)
Anyway. Yes, I'm totally open to hearing reasons why Obama might make a better candidate. I'm open to voting for the most competent individual. Period.

Kim K (12)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 3:45 pm
Just to further clarify....After having watched 20? 25? 30? debates....I can honestly say that HClinton stood out to be the more intelligent, competent, and progressive (green, etc) candidate. This is my personal assessment, and this is why I'm voting for her.
It has little to do with her gender or skin color, and all to do with my perception that she's the more competent person.
I had been actually very interested in what he had to say at the start, before the debates. But, I was disappointed with his responses in the debates, and- I have been further put off by Obama's cult-sih"following" by young people, the songs, the sexy videos, etc. To me, it trivializes, and puts a Hollywood (i.e, false,fake, plastic) spin on the serious business of determining our next President. I have also been put off by the antagnostic, aggressive stance his "political team" embodies (i.e, making racism charges where there are none, etc.), and the aggressive, judgemental comments of many of his "followers".
While I think he, himself, seems to be a very gifted and special person who may bring much to our country in some form...
the whole "circus" surrounding him certainly hasn't made me feel me more comfortable or confident in BO's executive abilities as President of the U.S.
Just my opinion, that's all.

Carol W (119)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 4:06 pm
Interesting link Kim K...

I agree 10,000 percent;
This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Darlene K (356)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 4:41 pm
Hello Anita, I don't think I have had the pleasure of meeting you yet. I do belong to the DNC on Care2 and outside of Care2, so I am fully aware of how "the party" is acting upon these candidates. I am also a Michigan resident making sure our votes get counted, as it is our right under the Constitution, and I do hope you signed the peitition.

Now, I am trying to understand what other point your trying to make with your comment or if your asking a question......, first you ask me "how a gay man gets characterized????" and then life in the 50's??? okay, are you asking me characterized as what? in society? as President? in equal rights? what?

Now, your cute remark about my Lying of when I was born...., I was born in 1961, I am 46 and will be 47 this year. So where did that come from? Are you in a bad mood? Bad day? heh.

Next thing, when someone addresses me with this statement, "You are one of the people who are unconsciously bias" They better be prepared for an answer that will defend myself, since I work hard like many others do to Truth. So I hope you can appreciate that, if not, well I am sorry, life goes on.
Humans and animals are dying. Children are being sex slaves, and we are being slowly poisoned to death. However, it was nice meeting you...Much Love and Peace....Namaste, Dar

Anitra Freeman (35)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 4:47 pm
It isn't just since she has been running for President that Hillary has had such vitriol directed against her; nor is she the only woman that it is directed against. The way the radical-right portrays Nancy Pelosi is abominable -- and the left hasn't been very good at defending her, because we've been disappointed that she wasn't MORE aggressive.

Governor Christine Gregoire, of Washington State, gets the same flack.

I would like to ask how strongly all the Hillary supporters speaking up here now spoke up for her BEFORE she was running for President? How much have you spoken up for Nancy Pelosi? For the women on your local city council, or any other woman elected official?

We aren't going to change the public dialog by electing Hillary Clinton, or by protesting the slurs only when directed at Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. Every comment we make at any time, anywhere, is part of the public dialog -- and the public dialog is changed, over time, by all those individual comments. We have to be speaking up ALL the time. Don't save our sense of outrage for the high-profile cases.

Kim, you value debates, I value what I see in print. You can't get a full picture of what a person does by how they perform on stage; that is just as true of Hillary as it is of Barack. Both Hillary and Barack have good legislative records; they have even worked together on legislation. His seems to me more substantive than hers. He has more time in elected office that she does. Even though the media portrays Hillary as divisive, both she and Barack both work well with opponents "across the aisle." He may sound more diplomatic in public speeches, and she may sound tougher; behind the scenes, he is just as tough in fighting for his causes and she is just as diplomatic in winning over the opposition.

I try not to judge people by the worst of their followers. God Herself has some followers I disapprove of. :D Ever since 2000, though, I have been very sensitive to the people immediately around a candidate, who are going to share the power and do the advising, with official appointments or not, after the election. I don't know as much yet about Obama's support team as i want to; what I know about Hillary's worries me a lot. Mark Penn, as an example, is a sleazeball. And she has the most lobbyist money of any candidate in the running, Republican OR Democrat.

Please take a look at Obama's actual positions and actual record -- in print.

Darlene K (356)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 4:58 pm
I STRONGLY Agree to Disagree with this statement, and I reference the Library of Congress. Senator Barack has a very SHORT congressional record. He DID NOT, AND WOULD NOT co-sponsor S311 Horse Slaughter Prevention Act Amendment that HILLARY originally co-sponsored, until 3 WEEKS BEFORE THE IOWA CAUCUSES, and now there are enough sponsors to pass the Senate. This was the most important animal legislation in the last several years.
He hands off several legislations to sub-committees, often, and many won't sponsor his bills. He has a passion for liquid-coal and has real visions for this resource.

Both Hillary and Barack have good legislative records

Darlene K (356)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:02 pm
"Both Hillary and Barack have good legislative records" ..., this is what I strongly agree to disagree with, sorry in case I confused anyone. S.311 was done on January 2007, Senator Barack didn't sign until 12/17/2007.

Being a Democrat Anita, I would expect you to vote for Hillary, if she gets the Nomination, right?

O O O (143)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:10 pm
Darlene is haveing you overlook the point everyone starts from nowhere on vote percentages to be noticed at all,then get on a ballot,so what she is saying re:spoiler vote is not stricly true if it is used for a Real person,especialy if that person is in Congress or has been,cause one does need some votes to get that far,which if they were a good person,is more now than i might req. againest much of the trash out there now.
If a person has tried to run,is out now,but has not said,they would refuse to serve,should they win,that is not a wasted vote-that is one of the most legetamate,though long shot votes one can have,regardless if they win or not.
Do enough of this,one might even re awken Americans as to what America is supposed to be about-& that it actualy then-works,because none of us here represent this sleeping Country-we are the one's,not only awake,but POSTING & doing other WORKS of our MINDS & HANDS towards which ever person(s),groups,ends each feels inclinded to further.

Hillary is another Gore-& should be OUT permenately for the same reason,as she will "say"anything to become elected-then,look out,especialy if on a 2nd term with no hope to place the American peoples reins upon her anymore & she "means" nothing af whatever she may "say"only what she "wants",if she can figure that out?-judgeing by the flip flops which do not note just when or why one flipped over either,but she is not alone in this.
All politicians need to be required to do this,to be liable&transparant to the people-in a TIMELY manor! Not years later & then that too "Spun".

No reins,& or no Spot Light upon'em-a Politicians Delight!

Kim K (12)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:17 pm
Yes, I've both read about his positions in print and watched him debate, and haven't been particularly impressed by either.

The fact that he supports building hundreds of new nuclear facilities (he articulated this iat length in one of the debates), even though its clear that there are security problems with the facitlities that we already have, and no where to dump the current waste.... Seems a bit frightening (and ignorant) to me.
HRC seems more committed to increasing sustainable/renewable energy sources- solar, wind, water.
This was a very important distinction for me, as I care about the environnment, and hope that the candidate would consider "the next seven generations", etc.
It basically seemed to indicate a lack of a larger vision on his part, re: our planet. It seems like he has also revised his "green" vision, as the contest has gone on...and many of the things that Clinton and Edwards proposed way back when (increasing and/or creating green collar jobs, etc) he seems, just in the past month, to be talking about.

Which is certainly good. It indicates that he's open to good ideas. So, that's certainly positive.
And, there are other things that he supports that I heartily embrace...he proposed some great legislation in Chicago which would increase penalties against animal abusers...and, there are many things that both candidates agree on, and have similiar proposals.

I don't like his health care plan. I live in Massachusetts, and am aware of how ridiculous and lame a "half-assed" attempt at Universal health care is. Its not working here to do something half way. They should have made it truly universal, instead of creating so many "band-aids" for so many different income levels.
I imagine that Obama's "partial" Univeral healthcare plan will be similar to Massachusetts.
So, I support a wholehearted commitment, such as HRC's plan.

I guess we'll see what happens.

O O O (143)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:18 pm
Humans First,at all times,in all ways,BUT,what is good for animals is usually good for people.

Darlene K (356)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:18 pm
Ms came out of nowhere with this one..., are you referring to Kucinich? If so, he wants the voters to vote for someone ON the ballot. He is back doing good work, and has moved on.
Now, the rest of your comment seems to be of a personal opinion, that I will, of course, Agree to Disagree on, because what you wrote could be "flip-flopped" into another perspective of another opinion, and be just as right.

O O O (143)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:23 pm
They do the "band-aid"approch becasue even those talking as if they want this type health care really do not,they do not want to fund it,& certainly not completely& do it the first time around while they are at it-the bottom line of it,as usual. Doing it all over=more Pork in Their Barrel,makeing the American people,just a Load of Beans.

Darlene K (356)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:24 pm
You know, I hate to say this, but good thing Hillary isn't attractive...., or else she would NEVER be elected, nor would see get the Democratic Nomination..., just my opinion. A sad reality, in this nation.

O O O (143)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 5:48 pm
As she is,she is porveing one can get as far as she's got,not being so.

O O O (143)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 6:59 pm
Re Kucinich: But,he did not say he would not accept the job if he got it,which a write in ballot would give him the chance at& is what LBJ menat when he turned down a second chance at the job. This job therefore might still be open to him,thus a vaild reason to write him in on a ballot.

Linda H (199)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 9:21 pm
Noted and very interesting! It seems to me she sure does have a run for her money! I wish her luck

Denice G (45)
Sunday February 17, 2008, 10:19 pm
Noted and thanks for the info. I am for Hillary, I feel she would be good for all of us.

Anitra Freeman (35)
Monday February 18, 2008, 9:43 am
As Kathy pointed out, there are two conversations going on here: 1) Is there a gender bias against strong women? What can we do about it? 2) Which candidate would be a better President, Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?

I strongly agree that there is a gender bias against strong women. There are some places where it is even worse than in the U.S. I've seen the environment improve since the 1950s. It changed by an accumulation of a great many individual actions, and that is what it will take to continue the change. We all have to speak up whenever ANY woman is attacked for being strong, or for not being "feminine," or for not being "attractive."

We have to defend even the women we disagree with. There are many, many valid criticisms of Ann Coulter; calling her "ugly" or "mannish" or accusing her of having an Adam's apple is out of line. When we let those misogynist attacks against Ann Coulter stand because we don't like Ann Coulter's politics, and then object when somebody who doesn't like Hillary Clinton's politics makes misogynist attacks against her, we're hypocrites.

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 11:17 am
Anita, you seem to avoid this question after you state this, so I will ask it again,

Being a Democrat Anita, I would expect you to vote for Hillary, if she gets the Nomination, right?

O O O (143)
Monday February 18, 2008, 11:47 am
No,absolutly not! and not right to attempt to req. this either! This is not who one thinks should win,or who one themselves wants to vote for,but vote my way,or vote a Patry Platform,just because you listed as-so prove you are... .

You do have some vaild points,but you also seem to have taken this to the point of showing oneself as perhaps a Politicaly Zelot. All have thier Right to vote their own position,no answers req.'ed to any but themselves. Those who do anything at anytime in any way-ONLY becasue it is following,as exspected,a particular label ,is throwing their own self,as well as their vote away.

Just becasue there up to now,as been no US woman president is not the only marker of an anti woman as " stance,which may have been,but may not still be.or not enough to matter.

Interesting to see who& by how much peoples views of themselves& their country is.

Shape,size,color,type,SEX,age,etc.:Should not matter. #1 Can you define clearly what the job(s) are and stuck with that? #2 Can you get the people under you to do properly,timely,what YOU want,HOW you want it done? #3 Will you own up to any messes you make,timely? #4 Can you contain your own messes? #5 Are you a "moral person" within the defintion the majorty of those you serve define this to be? #6 Are you someone that will do anything,say anything,regardless-just to get what you want? #7 Will you SERVE,the People,not be above them,in place of them,of them in name only. #8 Will you maintaine your Country as an indviual Country,in all ways?

If so,i do not care if you are one,the other or both-Octopus for President-but you better do the Job,as the Job was meant to be done as an American! Under this Consitution as wrriten or changed by proper vote of Congress with the proper support of the Amreican People.

NO BUSH-the only thing that NEEDS a really Close Shave!

"Party(s)" are just as wrong as anything else& do have their own agendas which may be far different thatn their platforms or people.

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 12:36 pm
Who are you talking to Ms O?

I am addressing this of Anita's statement;
Please remember that, after the Democratic convention, we are all going to have to pull together behind one candidate, to defeat John McCain. Every bit of mud we sling at each other now is ammunition for John McCain in the final leg of the run.

So I will assume you are talking to someone

O O O (143)
Monday February 18, 2008, 12:59 pm
I shall follow NO Party or it's Platform(s). Regardless. I VOTE,MY OWN MIND,& suggest others do likewise at all times,investagate,make a choice,change as FACTS dictate,timely,but for NO "Other Reason(s)".

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 1:18 pm
Well, that is wonderful Ms O, but that was clear a few replies ago.


Anitra Freeman (35)
Monday February 18, 2008, 8:37 pm
Darlene, I won't always be able to answer you immediately. I'm sure you understand that, since you also have activities off-line.

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic candidate for President, I will not only vote for her, I will *campaign* for her, because I believe a John McCain presidency would be disastrous.

Will you vote for Barack Obama, if he is the Democratic candidate against McCain? Will you work to get him elected?

I have more questions for you:
* Did it bother you at all that Hillary Clinton did not speak up for Michigan's rights to have your delegates seated until she knew she'd won in Michigan?
* Did you speak up against the attacks on Hillary Clinton before she was candidate for President?
* Have you spoken up against attacks on Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney and other strong women in politics?
* Do you consider any of the comments here about why a woman would support Barack Obama to be misogynist attacks?

BTW: My name is Anitra. With an "r". :) I am 58; I'll be 59 in July. I remember the 50s. When I say "You've come a long way, baby," I'm not trying to sell you cigarettes. This conversation wouldn't even have happened in the 50s, and not just because we didn't have the Internet. As I said before: Every comment we make at any time, anywhere, is part of the public dialog -- and the public dialog is changed, over time, by all those individual comments. We have to be speaking up ALL the time. I hope you will keep on speaking up after this election is over.

Okay, from the little I've seen already -- I am sure I can count on you to *always* speak up. :D

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 9:19 pm
Anitra, I am very sorry for not spelling it right. Yes, I will be voting for Barack, if he is the Democratic candidate, because I choose the democratic ideology, in our present politically ran Congress.

Now, I didn't campaign for Hillary, before the National Convention, so I won't be campaigning for her, after the Convention, neither. I simply chose her as the best of the bunch for the job on this nation's domestic crisises, and our foreign affairs mess. I truly believe, either Democrat won't have a problem beating I am sorry but, I don't, never have.

Hillary's campaign managers most certainly did petition the DNC on its ruling. Just because the media or "print" decides to note Hillary voicing her opinions, now...., doesn't mean every person's perspective is like yours.

Anitra.., remember you don't me. I speak up for anyone who is being attacked unjustly. ANYONE. Hillary has been one that I have had many conversations of debates, before she ran for President. I don't care if it is a child, a man, a woman, a dog, a cat, a christian, a muslim, an African-American, or whatever...., RACISM OR SEXISM, INHUMANE CRUELTY, is not of LIGHT...., not of good of this world. It is of darkness, something I help many to heal from with their positive energy within....

I have to ask what your fascination is with AGE. That is nice you remember the 50's, but what does that have to do with anything......, this is 2008. You made a statement of me possibly lying about my age, when obviously you misunderstood something. That right there showed me you had some personal problem with something and realized what we were happening with you and me.

I mean really, You went and commented a couple times, without answering my question, and then give a little diddle of "not being able to answer me immediately", yeah..ok. heh.

I don't know if you are intimidated or offended by what I write...., but I do find this silly. You are at an age, that I would think you could handle others "speaking" on opinions, other than what you might like to read. .

O O O (143)
Monday February 18, 2008, 10:26 pm
This conversation wouldn't even have happened in the 50s, and not just because we didn't have the Internet. As I said before: Every comment we make at any time, anywhere, is part of the public dialog -- and the public dialog is changed, over time.

She is correct,like it or not,admit it or not,Respect it or not. Free choice also to respond at all,or not& that does not make one wrong either. She took so time,but she did even responed in the same day,as if time taken matterd so long as it is timely,but only if it is s subject in which that does matter.

For myself-no,Party does matter,but only so far,especialy with a party that may have itself minipulated the voters to it's own fancy,so voteing on a party platform is no real vote at all.

Parties,as Parties,need to do their jobs correctly too,or people both will & Should,leave them-unless one is Sheep.

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 10:33 pm
Ms O., I am sorry, but you must be lonely or something, because everytime I talk to someone ELSE, you pipe in when no one is asking you..., lol. One usually anwers something when someone is talking to OR if someone is asking out for opinions....heh.

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 10:37 pm
Are you going to answer her questions to me dang..., See her comment is addressing ME, and asking me several questions....ahhh....see that.

Anitra Freeman (35)
Monday February 18, 2008, 11:05 pm
Darlene, I type as fast as I can. When you asked your question, I was still making a comment on something earlier. When I had time to type again, I wanted to use it to get back to the topic Kathy had intended to discuss: the bias against women, not the candidacy of one particular woman. I really did think that my answer to your question was already clear in what I had said, so getting to that could wait. I am sorry you feel offended by that. I also apologize for being flippant in my reference to your age. I did not intend to offend you; I only meant to point out that this struggle for the equal status of women has been going on for a long long time before you were born. Before any of us was born, actually. Yes, we have to deal with the way things are now; but don't you think that we can learn something from the women who went before us, and how they dealt with problems?

I am not intimidated or offended by what you or anybody else here writes. I prefer to read the opinions of people who disagree with me because they make me think more than listening to echoes does.

You do seem to be easily offended, and to take disagreement quite personally. Or perhaps we have both read each other wrong, and gotten off on the wrong foot. We do seem to share a lot of the same values. You are against injustice anywhere, so am I. That is why I tried to point out that gay men are portrayed just as vilely as Hillary Clinton has ever been portrayed. Women in America are not just in danger of being verbally assaulted and intimidated; many who are not as lucky as you or I or Hillary Clinton are physically beaten, raped, and murdered, every day. And even so, there are groups at even further risk: homeless children, gays, Muslims, black men. I truly believe that the liberation of women, gays, people of color, people in poverty, nonchristians, and every other marginalized group is all one cause, bound together. When we make progress for women, we make progress for black men. When we make progress for black men, we make progress for women. When we let ourselves be pitted one group against the other, we serve the interests only of those who exploit us all.

You want to help people heal, with the positive energy within them. I also want to help people change their own lives and their own world, with the creativity within them. Can we shift this conversation in a more positive, creative direction?

Darlene K (356)
Monday February 18, 2008, 11:29 pm
Please accept my apologies for any misunderstandings I may have taken from our conversations. I totally LOVED your response and it resonates with much of my Light, thank you. Yes, I will participate in shifting this conversation into a more positive direction. I also understood much better the point your where asking me earlier in reference to gay men, and I agree with your point 100%. This stigma doesn't seemed to be attached to one or two groups or cultures. The degrees of injustice vary considerably, too.

I have actually heard women say they wouldn't vote for Hillary, just because she is a woman, just because she has no style or fashion, just because she didn't divorce Bill, just because she LOOKS like she could be a b****, and I just am baffled...heh.

You say well I am not voting for her, because of NAFTA, and these women don't know what the heck you are talking about, but you say I am not voting for her because she didn't leave Bill or she looks like she could be a b****, and a flock will come chatter with common opinions......., I, that is messed up. This is a large percentage of America's society...., it is scary. I hear the same insanity with Barack and racism. I will go on record here, and some people say no I just don't like him for President. Well, I am part empath, and if I am close to you and you say something that you STRONGLY don't mean (a bold-face lie), I will feel a spikey pulse sensation through me.

I know it sounds crazy, but believe me, you have to be me...heh. The point is..., I get sick to my stomach. So many Americans are still racist, in 2008. Here we are..., as a nation wanting CHANGE, and we still have SEXISM AND RACISM alive and well....
"We the people" need to review "we the people", just my opinions.

Martin K (80)
Tuesday February 19, 2008, 1:31 pm
Gender is not the issue with Clinton, she is a mirror image of the people we want out of the administration. She is a strong woman ,otherwise she would not have the backing of the Bilderbergers, CFR,tri-lateral Commission, twice the corporate support of Obama, should have gone to jail with her convicted friends, is every bit a scoundrel who has used her sexist ways to bullshit the common people.
Bill Clinton destroyed the Democratic party by bringing it to the center, ended welfare for women without husbands, took 1 million more kids off healthcare, started a war in Kosavo, to break the Eastern Block, started NAFTA and Cafta, which cost the middle class to shrink, followed Nixon,Bush Sr., Reagan, in killing unions and setting lower wages and standard of living, is a Bilderberger, does what John D. Rockefeller expects, Hillary went to the Bilderberg meeting in Toronto in 2007, spent only a few hours there, (by helicopter and still Senator from New York) acusses Obama of plagerism when she and Obama took Edwards platform, voted ever time for a war the people rejected, signed on to the Kyle-Lieberman bill to attack Iran, would keep troops in Iran, and has the full backing of the media and AIPAC.

Yes there is gender and racial discrimination for lower class women. There are more women in college then men, more women entrepeneurs for 2/3 of small business is run by women.

I am a member of NOW and have been since they were formed, have spent many nights in jail around the country for civil disobediance with the civil rights movement and as a peace activist.. But feminist hyperbole has hurt the cause . Golda Meier, Margaret Thatcher et al certainly were strong right wing women.

Martin K (80)
Tuesday February 19, 2008, 1:39 pm
PS: Clinton gave a speach in 1998, wanting an end to Sadam Husseins regime and was bombing the country North and South. Bush just carried it forward stupidly.

Did you know that the CIA has been run by Skull and Bones, that all the heads come from Wall Street, or were Corporate Lawyer for Wall Street. They are in actuality TERRORISTS who start wars clandestinely so we can fullfill the New World Order, also the biggest drug dealers in the world.

Darlene K (356)
Tuesday February 19, 2008, 3:34 pm
What is your point GO HILLARY!!

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Sunday March 16, 2008, 12:08 pm

She isn't just battming against gender bias, she is also and perhaps even more battling against that natural rejection reaction people tend to have towards those who are BIG LIARS and HYPOCRITS and RUTHLESS POWER-CRAVERS !

She and Bill are so nice and chummy with Monsanto; Bill facilitated things for Monsanto, Hillary represented them !

It's not enough to be a woman ! You have to have integrity (like not suddenly coming down hard on Obama over NAFTA after supporting it yourself for years !) and defend the RIGHT causes, like NO to Monsanto & OGMs !
You girls ought to get smart, Hillary may be one of us, but she's a powerhungry monster !

Please read this :


By Linn Cohen-Cole

Dear Hillary,

By polling logic, I should be your supporter - Democrat, older woman,
white, liberal. I was even in a dorm with you in college. I have
pulled for you for years. But something this past summer
fundamentally changed my responsibility to my children and
grandchildren. In the time I have left in my life to protect them and
others, I need to speak out.

I saw a News Hour piece on Maharastra, India, about farmers
committing suicide. Monsanto, a US agricultural giant, hired
Bollywood actors for ads telling illiterate farmers they could get
rich (by their standards) from big yields with Monsanto's Bt
(genetically engineered) cotton seeds. The expensive seeds needed
expensive fertilizer and pesticides (Monsanto, again) and irrigation.
There is no irrigation there. Crops failed. Farmers had larger debt
than they'd ever experienced

And farmers couldn't collect seeds from their own fields to try again
(true since time immemorial). Monsanto "patents" their DNA-altered
seeds as "intellectual property." They have a $10 million budget and
a staff of 75 devoted solely to prosecuting farmers. Since the late
1990s (about when industrial agriculture took hold in India),166,000
Indian farmers have committed suicide and 8 million have left the

Farmers in Europe, Asia, Africa, Indonesia,South America, Central
America and here, have protested Monsanto and genetic engineering for

What does this have to do with you?

You have connections to Monsanto through the Rose Law Firm where you
worked and through Bill who hired Monsanto people for central food-
related roles. Your Orwellian-named "Rural Americans for Hillary" was
planned withTroutman Sanders, Monsanto's lobbyists.

Genetic engineering and industrialized food and animal production all
come together at the Rose Law Firm, which represents the world's
largest GE corporation (Monsanto), GE's most controversial project
(DP&L's - now Monsanto's - terminator genes), the world's largest
meat producer (Tyson), the world's largest retailer and a dominant
food retailer (Walmart).

The inbred-ness of Rose's legal representation of corporations which
own controlling interests in other corporations there and of
corporate boards sharing members who are also shareholders of each
other's corporations there, is so thorough that it is hard to
capture. Jon Jacoby, senior executive of the Stephens Group - one of
the largest institutional shareholders of Tyson Foods, Walmart, DP&L -
is also Chairman of the Board of DP&L and arranged the Wal-Mart
deal. Jackson Stephens' Stephens Group staked Sam Walton and financed
Tyson Foods. Monsanto bought DP&L. All represented at Rose.

You didn't just work there, you made friends. That shows in the flow
of favors then and since. You were invited onto Walmart's board, you
were helped by a Tyson executive to make commodity trades (3 days
before Bill became governor), netting you $100,000, Jackson Stephens
strongly backed Bill for Governor, and then for President (donating

Food and friends, in Clinton terms:

Bill's appointed friend Mike Espy, Secretary of Agriculture, who
immediately significantly weakened federal chicken waste and
contamination standards, opening the door to major expansion of
Tyson's chicken factory farms. Espy resigned, indicted for
accepting bribes, illegal contributions, money laundering, illegal
dispersal of USDA subsidies, .... Tyson Foods was the largest
corporate offender.

But what Bill did for Monsanto "genetic engineering" goes beyond
inadequate concepts of giving corporate friends influence: He
unleashed genetic engineering into the world. And then he helped
close off people's escape from it.

Genetic engineering is many orders of magnitude different
from "normal" (even polluting) business in its potential biologic
ramifications. The warning myth of Pandora'a Box - letting
irretrievable things rush out into nature - has become real. The
harrowing change to the world from nuclear fission and fusion is the
closest parallel.

What did Bill do?

1. Bill's put Monsanto people in at the FDA, as US Agricultural Trade
Representatives, on International Biotechnology Consultive Forums,
and more ... or or

2. Bill's FDA gave Monsanto permission to market rBGH (a GE bovine
growth hormone), the first genetically engineered product let loose
on us (or did tomatoes with fish DNA get there first?).

3. Despite reports of bovine illness and death, Bill's FDA did not
recall it or put warnings on it. Even "a very angry, very vocal
nationwide consumer base" had no impact. "

4. Bill's FDA wouldn't even label rBGH as "present" in milk.

5. When dairy farmers tried to label their own milk rBGH-free so the
public could choose, Bill's USDA threatened all dairies that their
products could be confiscated from stores. Michael Taylor, USFDA
Deputy Commissioner, was formerly Monsanto's counsel.

6. How were consumers to protect their family, given Bill's FDA
enforced public blindness, except to buy only organic? But Bill's FDA
tried to close off that last escape, proposing to include
in "organic" standards, "the dirty three" a : genetic engineering of
plants and animals, use of irradiation in food processing and use of
municipal sewage sludge as a fertilizer. (My emphasis.) The FDA
backed down.

Had this gone through, Monsanto could have finally labeled rBGH
milk ... as "organic." And animal waste from factory farms, a
pollution nightmare for Tyson and others, could have been sold as

USDA head Dan Glickman: "This is probably the largest public response
to an [Agriculture Department] rule in modern history." In fact the
response was 20 times greater than anything ever before proposed by
the USDA.

Personally, I resent years of effort to protect my children and now
grandchildren, from that crap.

Politically, Bill sided against small farmers and against the
public's right to know, and with Monsanto.

A snap shot of our food:

Oils: Sheep died in India after feeding on Bt cotton fields.
We feed our children Bt cotton, as
cottonseed oil in peanut butter and cookies.

Grains: 49% of US corn acreage was planted in Bt corn in 2007. A
French study proved Monsanto's GMO corn causes kidney and liver

Soft drinks and candy have highly concentrated Bt corn, in the form
of high fructose Bt corn syrup. The US food system depends most on
two crops, soy (90% GMO, 90% of traits owned by Monsanto) and corn,
the largest crop (60% GMO, nearly 100% Monsanto traits). "[E]
ssentially our entire food supply is genetically modified, to the
benefit of one company." The Grocery Manufacturers of America in 2000
estimated that 70 percent of US food contains GM traits.

Meat: Steroids bulk up atheletes. Monsanto steroids bulk up animals -
more weight, more profit. We feed our children steroids in meats. Is
this why our children are fattening, like Hansel and Gretel?

Poultry: Bill's USDA weakened chicken waste and contamination
standards and attempted to allow sewage sludge as fertilize crops. I
will say more about disease from industrialized poultry farms waste,
at the end of this letter.

Milk: Over 30 scientific publications have shown increased levels of
IGF-1 in milk with rBGH increases risks of breast cancer by up to
seven-fold, also increasing colon and prostate cancers risks. Canada,
29 European nations, Norway, Switzerland, Japan, New Zealand,
Australia, and South Africa ban U.S. rBGH dairy products. Bill's
USFDA put no restrictions, no warning labels (not allowing labels at
all). (My emphasis.)

American children eat that food and drink that milk, Hillary.
Coincidentally, American children are increasingly fat and sick.

Here, Bill ignored pleas for labeling. Abroad, Bill ignored intense
international objections over the same issue - unlabeled US food
exports - badly straining trading relations. Monsanto's "good ole
boy," he betrayed American families at the deepest levels
conceivable - their family's health and their democratic right to
know. He betrayed our rural life and American family farmers -
backing corporation deceit and control, over honesty and clean

But, HIllary, it is one thing to not label a regular ole food product
to sell it, and quite another to sell a suspected-dangerous food
product (rBGH), but Bill's administration didn't label (or stop) a
well-known, terrifying threat - Mad Cow Disease.

Bill's FDA's August, 1997 regulation permitted "known TSE-positive
[Transmissible spongiform encephalopathy] material to be used in pet
food, pig, chicken and fish feed," only requiring the label to
read "Do not feed to cattle and other ruminants" in the US.

Monsanto added to the problem. "There is evidence that rbST use
[Monsanto's GE bovine growth hormone] reduces the useful lifespan of
a dairy cow. ... Given that the incubation period for BSE is at least
three to five years and perhaps longer, rbST-treated cows could
harbor "hidden" BSE. That is, they might be infected but still
asymptomatic when sent to slaughter." (My emphasis.)

Bill let TSE into our entire food chain. And who owned the feed and
slaughter and genetic engineering corporations whch benefitted?

Please, tell me, Hillary, what he could possibly have gotten in
friendship or favors, that could ever justify his exposing millions
of people to this?

With genetic engineering itself, Bill did something to the whole
world, which tried to object. Words are inadequate to express how
astoundingly immoral, beyond human bounds and conceit and power, that

"Even for the biggest "winners," it is like winning at poker on the
Titanic." Jerry Mander: Facing the Rising Tide

He had no right.

Do you hear that?

Bill had sex from Monica Lewinsky. That's "dinky immoral." That's
chicken feed immoral - excuse the Tyson pun, excuse the TSE-laced
pun. Bill let genetic engineering lose on NATURE itself.

"Our way of life is likely to be more fundamentally transformed in
the next several decades than in the previous one thousand years...Tens
of thousands of novel transgenic bacteria, viruses, plants and
animals could be released into the Earth's ecosystems...Some of those
releases, however, could wreak havoc with the planet's biospheres."
Jeremy Rifkin, Biotech Century

Bill did this to us, like it was some nothing and he, some big dumb
ass Southern boy, just smiling and getting in good with the Big Boys,
thinking about as much about the consequences of something this
immense and about us human beings out here, as he thought about you,
when he was unfaithful with Monica. Just one big fool getting off on
the power and used to getting away with things.

Terminator genes, developed by DP&L, a Rose Firm client, prevent
seeds from "working" after only one season. Farmers "must" repurchase
(patents and suing not certain enough control, it seems).
Those "killing" genes pose the apocalyptic risk of breaking out into
nature. Natural seeds could fail, too. Nature could fail.


GMO fields are already contaminating normal species
Berkeley Professor of Microbiology, Ignacio Chapela, wrote an open letter,
warning the Mexican government about just this breaking out
phenomenon happening in maize

And it has already happened with weeds - pesticide resistant GMO
seeds break lose and weeds become pesticide-resistant Superweeds.

But Bill's USDA spokesman, Willard Phelps said the USDA wanted the
technology to be 'widely licensed and made expeditiously available to
many seed companies.'

"Genetic Engineering is often justified as a human technology, one
that feeds more people with better food. Nothing could be further
from the truth. With very few exceptions, the whole point of genetic
engineering is to increase sales of chemicals and bio-engineered
products to dependent farmers." David Ehrenfield: Professor of
Biology, Rutgers University

Hillary, one third of the world's bee colonies have collapsed. Gone.
Farmers in India are killing themselves. Farmers and bees. Since
organic farmers in India are fine and organic farmers report no
colony collapse, what does these farming catatrophes say
about "industrial agriculture"?

Mad Cow Disease is another direct result of industrial agriculture.
And now ....... transnational poultry factories are implicated as the source of
bird flu. ... Small scale poultry farms and wild birds seem not to be
the problem [just as small farmers are not the issue in Mad Cow
Disease], and yet "initiatives are multiplying to ban outdoor
poultry, squeeze out small producers and restock farms with
genetically modified chickens. ... http://www.ens- "Of the few outbreaks that
did occur in [Laos], more than 90% broke out in commercial poultry
operations, not free-ranging flocks."

Monsanto (and others) is currently working with the USDA
to force small farmers to tag every animal with a global tracking
device (NAIS - National Animal Identification System). Allegedly
related to food safety, Monsanto and others would be creating a vast
corporate digital library on every move of small farmers's livestock.

But small farmers do not create the contaminated environments, do not
supply the feed, do not grind up diseased animals into feed (how Mad
Cow began) and then sell it. In fact, their farming methods, free
range and small scale, are significantly healthier and safer for
animals and food than the massive concentration of animals by
corporate industrial agriculture.

Monsanto is also aggressively pushing for state laws to limit
farmers' right to choose what to plant and the public's right exclude
GE plants from their communities.

Cattle bloated by steroids, lapse and loss of 10,000 year old normal
seeds, immense pollution from factory farms, deadly-disease-ridden
feed, world-wide bee colony collapse, poisoned soil and depleted
water supplies, Superweeds,
lawsuits against farmers, loss of
family farms, and ... India farmers killing themselves in what may be
the largest mass suicide in recorded human history (on average ...
one farmers' suicide every 30 minutes since 2002 - The Hindu
1.30.08) - that is industrial agriculture.

Monsanto and Tyson are two of the largest industrial agricultural
corporations in the world. Industrial agriculture is represented by
your Rose Law Firm.

Your claim to care about food safety is terrifying double-speak given
what Bill did and who you take donations from. Your idea of a
Department of Food Safety would centralize control of food - in whose
corporate connected hands? You talk tough about labeling food - ah,
but "foreign" food - a sleight of hand tricking a public desperate
for safe US food. You talk about food safety but Bill degraded food
in every imaginable way and prevented minimally sane labeling.

I am a person before I am a woman. Your gender means nothing. It is a
media distraction. Your policies on health and food and women and
children, are meaningless in the face of connections that have
threatened those groups profoundly, connections you have never

Monsanto uses child labor in India, primarily very young girls,
exposing them to a lethal pesticide 13-14 hours a day, for pennies in
pay. But you take donations from their lobbyists. You say you care
about black people but as the poorest people in this country, they
are least able to buy organic and are forced to eat the contaminated
foods Bill let into our food system. The National Black Farmers
Association has a boycott out on all Monsanto products.

Do you eat organic?

So, who are you with, hapless black consumers and black farmers, or
Monsanto? Mothers left to give their children rBGH milk, or Monsanto?
Women exposed to 7 times greater risk of breast cancer, or Monsanto?
Desperate farmers in India and young children forced into child labor
in cottonseed factories there, or Monsanto? Animals suffering from
lives in filthy cages and disgusting feedlots, shot up with steroids
and hormones and antibiotics, or Monsanto? Our children who eat candy
with high fructose Bt corn syrup associated with kidney and liver
toxicity, or Monsanto?

Edwards was right about your corporate connections. I just didn't
understand until I saw that PBS show and read about Monsanto, how
personally affected my children and grandchildren, and all people
around the world, have been.

I will not vote for you. I will vote for someone who will commit
themselves to work on behalf of small farmers and real food and
decent treatment of animals and to end this industrialized
agricultural nightmare that is taking us off a cliff.

Linn Cohen-Cole

February 3, 2008

Original Content at

Darlene K (356)
Sunday March 16, 2008, 12:47 pm, Jill, your alittle behind in your campaigning, this is old news, and well beyond the propaganda, now. Obama is on the experience attack, now, since he is on the same current plan with NAFTA, and the WAR. Oh, and SINCE, the REZKO trials started and that land deal of his, ya
Update your propaganda, hun.

LucyKaleido ScopeEyes (82)
Monday March 17, 2008, 5:04 am

Sorry to disagree with you, Darlene, but Hillary came down hard on Obama over NAFTA just recently. And no one except Alternet columnest, David Sirota, picked up on media negligence in failing to report that Hillary has always supported NAFTA, no matter what she is saying now.

It's never too late to get your information right and to find out the truth about a candidate - the election hasn't been held yet, as far as reports we're getting here in France are concerned !

Yesterday, I posted Sirota's excellent, truly excellent article on NAFTA and "free trade" : the former is already a campaign issue; the latter ought to be, and would be, if people raised the issue and showed concern over the depravity of our trade policy.

Check it out -

Hope in the Time of NAFTA - One Presidential Adviser Acknowledges Our Trade Policy's Underlying Depravity

US Politics & Gov't (tags: US, NAFTA, job-killing, Bill Clinton, Hillary, dishonesty, The Onion, media negligene, fact-free news coverage, "free" trade, protectionism for corporate profits, trade policy's depravity, Obama advisor, Goolsbee, Mexican, Peruvian farmers )

- 20 hours ago -

Reading articles about Hillary Clinton attacking NAFTA can lead you to believe The Onion has taken over US news bureaus. Bill pledged not to sign NAFTA, but did, so Hillary's dishonesty is nothing new in politics. What is new is the fact-free coverage !

By the way, this isn't propaganda, it's facts, "hun" !

Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Monday March 17, 2008, 12:42 pm
Again, I please ask that comments about this artilcle stay ON-TASK. To go off on NAFTA information when this is an news story about bias regarding strong women in politics and the workplace is a bit off-topic, don't you think? I don't mind difference of opinion, just rants that are not directly about this article.

Mindi H (80)
Tuesday March 18, 2008, 12:16 pm
I have no bias toward any gender or race in general and/or in regards to a leadership position. I just feel that Hillary is not the right woman we need - and that has nothing to do with her gender or her family. Back in ancient times - women were held in very high esteem and counsel, but of course.. time (and organized religion) has taken its toll on that- but that is just my honest and female opinion. Peace :)

Kathleen Hilliker (293)
Tuesday March 18, 2008, 5:25 pm
Mindi, thank you for your opinion, and leaving it in a very polite and conversational way. Women, in ancient times, as well as the 21st century continue to be discriminated against, held to completely different stancards, and must continue to fight tooth and nail for the same advantages of their male counterparts. If this weren't true, there'd be a whole field of maybe you ...more "right" women for this job.

Hillary, in my opinion, has the qualifications, experience, and leadership abilities. I don't want another woman, though, I want THIS woman.

Sandra Weston (24)
Sunday March 30, 2008, 7:23 pm
This issue needs to be addressed by all!!
Simply glue and paste or click on the hyperlink.
This is an outrage!! I believe with every fiber of my being that Hillary has the necessary experience and leadership abilities. Any one who can fight on in the midst of such horrible media coverage has definitely got my vote. She is awesome and I love her like my own Mom!!!

Frankie T. (0)
Tuesday June 3, 2008, 7:18 pm
I Think that she would be great
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story

Loading Noted By...Please Wait


butterfly credits on the news network

  • credits for vetting a newly submitted story
  • credits for vetting any other story
  • credits for leaving a comment
learn more

Most Active Today in Society & Culture

Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of or its affiliates.

New to Care2? Start Here.