Bitch is simply the female equivalent of asshole, and its use really doesn’t have anything to do with misogyny…it’s just that for some reason the descriptor “asshole” never attached itself to women.
The reason for this, I believe–and I’m not trying to start a fight here–is that men and women are simply different in certain ways (an easy way to illustrate this is to ask if the audiences and readership for such things as “action movies”, “chick flicks”, car magazines and romance novels is split 50/50 between men and women?) and thus, certain words have evolved to describe certain negative characteristics of each sex. “Asshole” has become the descriptor of choice when it comes to describing certain types of negative behavior in men, and everyone knows exactly what is meant when a man is described that way; “Bitch” has become the descriptor of choice when it comes to describing certain negative behavior in women, and everyone knows exactly what is meant when a woman is described that way. Calling a woman an asshole simply doesn’t convey her personality or behavior in an accurate way, and calling a man a bitch is just plain silly.
2)In regard to “riding coattails”, Hillary’s ride differs greatly from that of GWB, and that’s most likely why it was considered more acceptable (if it ever really was) in GWB’s case than in Hillary’s. George W. Bush didn’t inhabit the White House as something of a behind-the-scenes co-president; he didn’t try to force a hugely unpopular social program down the nation’s throat; and he didn’t try to claim “experience” and “readiness on day one” of his future presidency by virtue of having been around when his father was in office.
Further, he went on to become a independent businessman and two-term Texas governor quite apart from his father’s life (granted he may have benefited, in business at least, from his father’s connections…I don’t know) and without giving the impression that everything he said and did during that time was calculated to eventually land him in the White House.
In other words, there’s a difference between GWB’s simply being related to someone who once held office, and Hillary, who’s trying to use her proximity to that office as a springboard (and justification) for her own candidacy…and this is why Hillary comes under fire for riding her husband’s coattails, whereas GWB didn’t with regard to his father.
Not a Democrat, but I usually vote that way. This year, I’m pushing the pin for whatever Democrat there is on the ballot, even if it’s just a moldy bowl of potato chips. I’d like to vote for Obama, but will take Clinton.
I don’t find either of their platforms better than the other, and in a vacuum it would be a more difficult decision, but there are people who’ve been stoking their hatred of Hilary since 1991, and she’s gotten so reflexively defensive that I think she’d get less useful work done than Obama.
Experience? Age? Who gives a crap. I was against Schwarzennegger, but California hasn’t fallen into the sea. His lame ideas didn’t get through, and his good ideas have gotten support; I think we just needed to get out of our bitter red v blue bickering.
Of course. Perfectly equal epithets, no doubt applied with comparable frequency. It must be my silly feminine hysteria that causes me to perceive it differently. Uh huh. :rolleyes:
A cursory SDMB search of “Hillary” + “bitch” brings up 206 posts. “Clinton” + “bitch” brings up 139.
Darn. Missed the edit window. I’d just like to add that I’m honored to be able to vote for either the first black president or the first female president. I don’t think the Dems have an absolute lock on the election, but I’m definitely getting to cast that historic vote.
Obama. I don’t have a problem with Clinton, other than I share the concern about the high negatives. I’d also like to take this opportunity to throw out The High Negatives as a BAND NAME! Sorry, I know that’s bad form.
I honestly don’t know. I’m also caught up in Obama’s enthusiasm and oratory skills, and I think he brings some really great ideas to the table, but Hillary definitely has the skills to get things done. I don’t really know who I’d choose, between them.
If you compare the two Dem frontrunners to the Rep frontrunner, it gets easier. In McCain v. Obama, that’s simple. I’d choose Obama, everyday and twice on Sundays. (Even though I do like McCain.) If it’s McCain v. Clinton, yikes - I don’t know who I’d pick there. And as a Democrat, that’s worrisome to me. I think Obama can beat McCain. I don’t think Clinton can. That scares me - I’m done with Republican leadership for now. As much as I like and respect McCain (tho’ there are things I definitely don’t like about him), I can’t have another Republican in office. Not right now.
In any case, it’s clear that I need to do some research and learn more about the candidates.
I thought Edwards and Kucinich were the best candidates. Now I’m afraid it’s between a widely hated machine politician (although the machine doesn’t seem to be terribly well maintained), and a charismatic guy who looks to me like Jimmy Carter II. My feeling is that Obama’s candidacy was really a trial balloon for 2012 which took off quite by accident, and that he wakes up every day wondering how the hell this all happened. I don’t see much substance there.
Some days I think I’d rather see Obama in there, because he’d maybe defuse some of the nastiness that’s plagued this country for 15 years now. But most days I’m for Clinton, because I know that she knows what she’s doing, and 8 years of incompetence is more than enough for me.
When Bill Clinton left office after doing so little that was revolutionary for the environment, for class inequality, or indeed any lasting change, I wondered why. He had all that political capital and charisma, but he did so little with it. It was like he was conserving political capital and favors instead of using them up for the greater good.
Yet he could not run again; what was he saving up for?
I eventually figured it out when Hillary announced. The Clintons needed to save their political capital because they indeed were not yet done running for office. I get it now.
Well, I don’t want to wait another 8 years to see if this supremely self-interested machine is going to finally risk something for me and mine. I’ll take anything over that – even if I get nothing from Obama, that would make me feel less gullible, less taken-advantage-of, than getting nothing from Clinton, Inc™.
Obama. I don’t believe all the hype. (In fact, a big thing I worry about is that if he is elected is that people will turn against him when he fails to meet expectations, expectations Jesus Christ himself would have a hard time meeting.) But I think he’s marginally preferable to Hillary, for a couple of reasons. I think he’s got the smarts to make up for his inexperience.
I’ll vote for Hillary in the general, if it comes down to that. Not that I have a meaningful vote.
I’m pretty sure that’s not feasible, though. As I understand it, superdelegates are not actually bound by the endorsements they make before the convention, and if Obama gets enough delegates such that a small portion of additional superdelegates would get him an absolute majority, it wouldn’t be too difficult for him to twist some arms to get those votes.
I have a theory on that. Ever since JFK, we’ve elected presidents we didn’t like all that much, like we’re afraid to elect someone idealistic and inspiring because we’re worried he’ll get assassinated. Better to have someone meh and not get your dreams dashed suddenly and violently.
