Oh I don’t know - you’re doing that thing that chicken little does, when he says the sky is falling but it really isn’t. Or, how about, you’re doing that thing that the boy who cried wolf does, when he cries wolf without any wolf.
I mean, you used the word “women” in your post. I think that’s sexist.
Go ahead, call every shadow you want to jump at racism, sexism, or whatever. Devalue the term to the point of meaninglessness.
Sexism is much more prevalent in our society than racism is, IMO. So I’m definitely willing to entertain the complaint that a lot of the specific criticisms of Clinton are based on double standards. I don’t think the “cackle” applies, since that has more to do with her fakeness than the laugh itself. If Clinton was just an awkward, but genuine person in public, the laugh would be an asset.
Judging her by her appearance, what outfits she’s wearing though, that’s irrelevant and a female does encounter more of that than male candidates. But I’d also argue that female voters are far more sexist in that regard than male voters. When I’m watching the news with a room full of both men and women, guess who comments on a female candidates’ outfit? Not the men.
Again, trivializing women and blowing off their concerns is also classic sexism.
Well, for middle aged white men it certainly would be. Of course, the worst thing is that they are dying. But if the retirement age was raised, the survivors would have to work longer to get Social Security, too.
Or (C) understands both, but also knows this is the most intensely and uniquely taxing and stressful job ever devised.
And thinking Hillary’s laugh is “annoying” (or even unusual) is in itself sexist.
Citation needed on that first bit, because I’ve known people who spent almost all of their time studying, learning, always worrying about not learning enough or not properly understanding the material, who were very very stressed. And I’ve known an uncle who came back to us from Afghanistan a calloused shell of the guy I remember growing up. During wartime in any nation, it should be pretty easy to find some millitary personnel that are more taxed and stressed than the POTUS, who, I remind you, has thousands of individuals working to make his job bearable.
An annoying laugh is something that both men and women are capable of having. If it’s noted that a black man has an annoying laugh, is that racist? I’m having trouble understanding your thought process. So it’s sexist to be annoyed by a woman’s laugh - what definition of “sexist” are you using there?
Characterizing Clinton’s laugh as “hysterical”, which one of the posters in this thread has done more than once, is certainly sexist. Simply being annoyed by it is not.
Also, politicians today are so micro managed that commenting upon what a candidate is wearing is not entirely unreasonable. It’s perhaps slightly more unfair on a woman, not only because of sexism but because a woman has more options when dressing for high powered political occasions. Therefore there is more to talk about in a womans fashion/looks and more options for a faux pas from a female.
I dont think it entirely unreasonable to suspect that Clinton’s campaign is unsure on whether or not to project Hilary with the aura of a power woman, a motherly aura, or as the Nation’s wise & sensible grandmother. All these are in part projected by physical image. All will be a conscious decision by her and her campaign.
Yeah:
That’s certainly the original meaning of the word “hysterical”, and I agree that someone using the word in that way would be sexist. But how many people nowadays even know that meaning at all?
Did someone say something about “overstatement”? :rolleyes:
I think Sanders is just as electable as Hillary, particularly because the Republicans are going to nominate someone totally unelectable (this is true even if it’s not Trump, because all the likely non-Trump nominees are also unelectable.) The Democrats have a 248 vote Electoral College advantage “baked in” so only need to win a couple battleground states, the Republicans have to win almost all of them and would need a very good candidate up against a very poor Democrat candidate to see that result. Bernie isn’t that candidate, he’ll easily win the EC.
The one problem I’d see if I were a Democrat is how old the party’s leadership is. Both of its main candidates at the moment are either pushing 70 (Hillary at 68) or over 70 (74). HRC is at least “only going to be as old as Reagan” when she assumes office. Sanders is so old that if he were to win there’s a legitimate age/health argument against re-electing him. He’d be 83 at the end of a second term. Even the Catholic Church puts Cardinals out to pasture at 80 (in terms of not letting them vote on Popes any longer.) If you look at the Democratic House Leadership or Senate Leadership, it’s also old–very old in fact.
I don’t necessarily doubt that a young generation of national-level Democratic politicians can emerge, I just wonder why we don’t have any at the moment, even “in the making” The Republicans have a ton that you can point to, many won’t pan out (but that’s always the case) but they’re at least in the pipeline. I don’t even see the Democratic next generation of leaders in the pipeline.
Eh, that doesn’t really matter. The Democrats controlled the Senate for most of Obama’s Presidency, the Republicans have shown they are willing to use control of one half of the legislature to largely stop all serious legislation. While they did always cave on shut downs and debt ceilings, there’s a massive amount of legislation that has simply never been passed since the 2010 takeover of the House, and if Hillary wants more legislative achievements than Obama she will have to work with Republicans the same way Bill did.
I’m usually loath to praise the House Republicans, and they are still worthy of a lot of condemnation, but there has been a micro-flurry of common sense legislation passed in the last couple months, indicating that Speaker Ryan may have found a way to at least get some things out of the chamber. The craziest part of the Republican House to me was never their tantrums over the debt ceiling and government shutdowns, but how much legislation they refused to let get out of the chamber even when said legislation was supported by large bipartisan majorities and by their own constituents. It’s possible the House will be more amenable to working with Hillary in any case.
Hillary has always vacillated about this, starting with her abortive attempts to use the name Rodham Clinton and her ancient comment about cookies. It concerns me that her campaign still hasn’t settled on a persona. Even if it’s inauthentic, they’d be better off if they picked one.
“Cackle” also. Rarely is a man’s annoying laugh called a “cackle” … that is a witch allusion, be it with conscious intent or not.
Honestly listening to almost anyone’s laugh in isolation is … odd. Try recording your own and playing back a few dozen times.
You read a lot into my comment that I didn’t say. I am saying that Hillary, specifically, does not have the kind of laugh that deserves to be labeled this way. I say that based on having heard her laugh many times and having heard many other people laugh throughout my life. I was not saying that no woman possibly could have a laugh that most people would consider annoying. It’s just that with this specific laugh, I don’t buy it except that people are biased against her. She has a laugh that is very ordinary for a woman of her generation and geographical origin.
To put it another way, there are people whom I like in general but find certain of their vocal mannerisms offputting. (For example, Robert Kennedy Jr.) But I strongly suspect that the people who consider Hillary’s laugh annoying just happen to almost uniformly be her political enemies. So, mostly Republicans along with perhaps a few left wingers who disdain her moderation or triangulation.
Howard Dean, is that you . . . .
Far easier to accuse her detractors of sexism rather than have a legitimate go at her own advisors and her campaign.
What about Ms. vs. Mrs.? Either one would alienate a lot of voters, while drawing attention away from her economic message. So she’s smart to go by Hilary.
Good Sunday morning. 
. Welfare is not something to live on. Stop being dependent on welfare. Welfare is like a narcotic. Clinton/Gore did what they had to do by proposing and signing it. Some progressives think it’s cool to stay on welfare all your life, when it creates dependency.