Nancy Pelosi (D-Eranged), made a number of comments in this article, but stopped short of making sense.
OK. On that basis, Mr. Obama has faced racism, and Mr. McCain ageism. All victims are equal, so move on.
Or, a zero sum game. Instinctively = talking out of your ass.
Whiskey, tango, foxtrot?
The last three are factual words.
Which is it, Flipper?
Based on that, there are dinosaurs, because there have been.
Please, Nancy, for the sake of your party, shut the fuck up.
You’re right. Unquestionably, there was absolutely zero sexism against Hillary Clinton. And the hypothesis that the number of sexists, ageists and racists in this country are equal is entirely logical. I don’t see what the problem is here.
What did Nancy Pelosi do wrong here?
It sounds like she basically said Hillary gained support from a number of women because she’s a woman and lost a number of other votes because she’s a woman.
Is that in question?
It would have been nice if you had quoted what she was responding to. The expectations will be high because of a democratic president with a democratic controlled congress. It really isn’t the WTF comment you seemed to think it was.
You know, honestly, if Hilary was the exact same person but a guy I think the election would have gone very differently. Not necessarily that she would have won, but it would have been a very different game.
I bet her genitalia would look a bit different too. Just since we’re all going out on a limb.
IMHO, Pelosi’s not that far off the mark; sure, Obama faced racism, but I’ve never heard an African-American say they “wouldn’t vote for a black man to be President.”
Conversely, I’ve heard many, many women say they “wouldn’t vote for a female President.” Given their testimony, I’m certain of one thing- I wouldn’t want any of *those * women to be President.
Sure. Then it would have been her wife acting all wacky during her campaign.
I thought Instinctively = woman’s intuition.
So you agree?
I’m not sure if that even makes any sense. For one thing, if she was “the exact same person but a guy,” she wouldn’t have been married to Bill, and if you take that away, she’s really not the same person anymore, in the eyes of many voters.
No, no, a woman’s Intuition is her triple-bladed Schick razor. Has comfort strips with aloe, and a comfort-grip handle.
What?
So the OP expects a politician, a MEMBER OF CONGRESS, to shut up during a press breakfast?
I lack words to describe what a silly concept this is.
No offense, OP, but even my cat has better reading comprehension skills. There was nothing particularly earth-shatteringly revelatory about her (rather general) observations, but there certainly wasn’t anything wildly off-the-mark about them either.
What would Pelosi know about being a female politician, anyway?
I didn’t say there wasn’t, did I? Pelosi did claim there was sexism, then didn’t, then said she wasn’t sure, but there must be, because there has been. I also didn’t hypothesize on the equality, or lack thereof regarding other -ists. I merely observed that the other candidates faced their own versions of prejudice on a given facet of their person.
It’s not that complicated, although they could have edited the quotes and explained things better. I think you also did the “What an idiot!” thing too fast. Pelosi said she believed there was sexism, but there was also enthusiasm for Clinton because she was a woman. She felt the two probably canceled each other out. She said sexism definitely exists, but she’s not sure if that’s why Hillary lost. I think that’s about it.
Probably because of PMS.
I don’t think Pelosi has done a very good job at all as Speaker, but I see nothing at all wrong or new about her comments.
It’s interesting how she calculated this “offset”.
While the focus among some has been alleged media bias against Clinton on the basis of gender (largely citing a few snarky comments by pundits), Clinton’s gender arguably helped her in the media. For uselessly prolonging the race for the nomination while providing Republicans with anti-Obama fodder, she was repeatedly praised as dogged and tough. A male candidate who did that likely would overwhelmingly have been termed stubborn and obstructionist.
Pelosi is being cagey here, but she’s doing her part to fuel the mythology that Clinton lost the race because of sexism, instead of due to the fact that she was a flawed, poorly prepared candidate. That mythology can be used as a tool to stir up support for other women candidates, most prominently including Clinton herself when she’s being considered for V.P., Supreme Court justice, President or whatever high post her followers feel she’s entitled to.
Do you think there’s a problem with noting the existence of sexism against Clinton without also mentioning prejudices against the other candidates?
No, she repeatedly said there was sexism, and also said she wasn’t sure if the sexism was responsible for Clinton’s defeat. This is no contradiction, since the existence of sexism and the role it played in her defeat are two different questions.
Other than using a lot of words to say a simple thing, which is normal for a politician, Pelosi hasn’t done anything worth getting annoyed about here.
Weak, weak pitting.
Cite and cite?
You’re pulling this analysis out of your ass just as much as Pelosi was.