Are there specific people that don't want a woman to be President? Sure.

But opposing HRC for the Presidency doesn't make one a sexist any more than opposing BO for the Presidency made one a racist.

all I can say is...No. Fuck no.

and so doesn't deserve to be nominated.

There will be exceptions to that rule but I say no.

And assertions that they are should be supported by evidence.

I want to believe that everyone who does not support her candidacy bases their opinion on her work record.

But there is this: Leading up to 2008, democrat media pundits and democrat college kids fell all over Obama - a near-unknown - and embraced his candidacy and felt tingles go up their legs when he passed, and so forth. The journal that I turned to for news (Huffington Post) routinely lauded him in ridiculous fashion and accepted his silliest statements (he once said he would be good at foreign relations because he had lived overseas ... AS A LITTLE BOY) while Clinton was denigrated and depicted unflatteringly in the liberal press despite her vastly superior resume.

At that time I asked myself: if their positions were switched - if a young untried woman politician (any race) stepped forward to challenge an experienced male insider (any race) would college kids have screamed and swooned; would pundits have felt a leg-tingle; would ANYONE have taken a first-term woman senator seriously?

Also, there were plenty of really ugly comments on political websites from people mocking her as a "dried-up cunt" or "ugly" or referring to her and her husband's sex life. Also rearing it's head were the usual sexist tropes said of women: "she's a bitch" "she's not likeable enough" "she teared up so she must be an emotional female" etc.

So it was apparent that sexism among dems played a big role in BO's nomination. And that is why I don't trust the motives of every dem who claims to be against HRC. I believe that you yourself are genuine, and I am sure that's the case for many others who dislike her. But the evidence of 2008 indicates that some people categorically show contempt for her because she is female, and an even larger group dislike her due to unconscious sexist standards - judging her for her marriage, her looks, her "niceness" for example - that they would not hold men to.

I would love to see her win. Though I expect she will not be our Female Savior any more than BO has been our Black Savior.

so no

No.

aren't racists. *Some* are racist and sexist and quite likely visiting from the Cave, but they're not representative of DU as a whole.

Signed,
A White Chick

but the right woman. I think a lot of Americans not just some Democrats, are looking for someone new, not the same old stuff over and over again. I cringe at the thought of Clinton/Bush again, I will vote for her but I will feel like I settled. I also think the gridlock will be worse than ever, the people who hate President Obama feel that only an old white guy deserves to be in the white house so they will go after Hillary as much as they have President Obama.

I don't think that Democrats who dislike the idea of Hillary in 2016 are sexist, although I think many of the Republicans who feel that way are, I think we just want someone who can really try to change things for the better. A true progressive will have trouble winning a national election unless we work to get out the young people and our own base.

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Why would you think that people who support Hillary Clinton would consider supporters of, say, Elizabeth Warren, to be sexist? You're not making a lot of sense with these rhetorical questions, I think.

I ask because such a troll seems to have said the same thing here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5824964
and has now been banned. If this comes from just one post you saw, can you check to see if they got banned as a troll? And if that's the case, perhaps self-delete the thread, so this doesn't develop into any argument started by a troll and no-one else?

Is this a spammer troll?

even if 7 threads looks a bit excessive for one go. But it's possible that it was one silly remark by a troll that got them to start this. I haven't seen anyone on DU saying that it's sexist to be against Hillary.

A time-out maybe?

It might be helpful for you to learn the difference.

"I'm asking" is a weak deflection.

I understand that you're defending someone you know here, but a little objectivity would be helpful.

and 'only asked' if they were a 'spamming troll'. I answered 'no', but you continued to call it spam, and suggested they should have a time-out. Of course you're attacking them.

Don't reply. We're done.

Moderators can only determine whether something is against the SOP for the forum. Just a heads up.

Lots of anti-Hillary folks here.

So no, I will continue to see posts and continue to comment on them. Look at it this way: putting George W. Bush on "ignore" for 8 years (by not paying attention) didn't prevent him from trashing the country. Better you should see the bad that people do than not.

Lol.

at 10:37 am (Mountain Time) so this had nothing to do with that troll given the post times. The spamming threads appear to be solely the invention of the person posting the OPs, imo.

Was it 'helpful holly'? If so, they're a 'repeat disruptor', so it's still worth asking if this came from an earlier, now-banned, troll, who then returned as 'helpful holly' (eg Library Girl).

it wasn't, given the posting time difference. I was simply pointing out that troll post wasn't the cause for the spamming threads.

I only saw that thread after the troll was banned. I don't think that particular post was the impetus; but since that post turned up shortly after this thread did, I wondered if there was a troll going around saying opposition to Hillary is sexist, stirring up trouble. As I said, I haven't seen the remark elsewhere, and therefore I wonder if this thread is a red herring, caused by a troll.

a good candidate.

And as a woman, I oppose all those who promote WAR as WAR is extremely and particularly devastating to WOMEN.

No one who supports Women's Rights, supports War, as Hillary does.

I think War IS sexist frankly, very sexist. The question you should be asking is why a woman who claims to be Liberal on Women's rights is so supportive of that sexist, medieval practice.

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

... as their hatred of her seems to make them believe whatever she says is not the truth.

Le sigh.

some people cannot let go of a false meme....

le sigh backatcha!

You responded to the post based on a misunderstanding of what was actually posted.

very convoluted but the message was clear.....

The bullshit about HRC is simply flabbergasting.....

It certainly wasn't the poster that you responded to.

And you did what you always do - jump to the conclusion that whatever is being said is sexist, and react based on that instead of what was actually posted.

It borders on bullying.

and supplying facts to the contrary is bullying now? THAT says alot right there.....somehow everyone here lately that gets a criticism is being "bullied"....some have a low threshold for what bullying really is...it minimizes the concept using that way...

Crying "sexism" or "misogynist" every time you don't like what someone says minimizes those concepts.

with supporting evidence to the contrary....you don't like the truth and you call it bullying....

Because there was nothing TO counter.

even the mere implication of such a thing is ridiculous on its face...

and nothing sexist was said.

You just don't like the fact that not all Democrats are ready to anoint HRC as our candidate.

Well, get used to it - there are many of us that believe there are better, more progressive candidates than HRC, and that doesn't make us sexist...

that is EXACTLY the implication...I don't see how the hell you interpreted it any other way...

I wasn't calling the poster Sexist.....get over it...

I've watched for months as you've bullied people that don't agree with you, and I'm not going to be silent about it anymore.

Every time I see it, I'm going to call it out. And if you don't like, then alert on me. But it's high time that you're called out for your behavior towards posters that don't conform to exactly what YOU think they should believe.

the truth hurts but it shall set you free...

Hyperbole

It does nothing to further their views and only divides

I have seen Bernie Sanders speak of Hillary, or for that matter even his most conservative counter part in Congress, and he always treats his opponents with respect

It also occurs on both sides

Some probably, some probably not.

I doubt the vast majority of her opponents have trouble with her because she's a woman.....I mean, come on now, it's not like we're a carbon copy of the Republicans, ya know? Just saying.

through hell to get Elizabeth Warren elected, so no, that isn't why I oppose Clinton. I oppose her for two reasons - too close to Wall Street, and too much creeping dynastic politics between the Bushes and now the Clintons. That is NOT healthy.

Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's unrestricted right
(+5 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 2:
Legally require hiring women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 3:
Comfortable with same-sex marriage
(+5 points on Social scale)

No opinion on topic 4:
Keep God in the public sphere
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 5:
Expand ObamaCare
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Vouchers for school choice
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 8:
No 'rights' to clean air and water
(+5 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 9:
Stricter punishment reduces crime
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Strongly Favors topic 11:
Higher taxes on the wealthy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Favors topic 12:
Pathway to citizenship for illegal aliens
(+2 points on Social scale)

Opposes topic 13:
Support & expand free trade
(-3 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 14:
Maintain US sovereignty from UN
(-3 points on Economic scale)

No opinion on topic 15:
Expand the military
(0 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 16:
More enforcement of the right to vote
(+5 points on Social scale)

Favors topic 17:
Stay out of Iran
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 18:
Prioritize green energy
(-5 points on Economic scale)

Opposes topic 19:
Never legalize marijuana
(+2 points on Social scale)

Strongly Favors topic 20:
Stimulus better than market-led recovery
(-5 points on Economic scale)

would be just fine with Warren, I don't see how sexism is an issue here.

Any Democratic candidate is better than any GOP candidate. That's been true my whole life, why wouldn't it be the same in 2016?

You would be surprised I guess then how many on DU do NOT hold that stance....

and may continue posting on DU.

Which she may not be.

Anyone on here who is going to vote third-party or sit at home if a candidate they dislike wins the nomination is disruptive to a place that is, after all, Democratic Underground, not "stay at home" underground or "third party/write in" underground.

Unfortunately for those eager to kick people off DU, Skinner has said:

I don't know if you've been here during a Presidential primary year where, after the Primary, it was "Rally around the Nominee" time. That day will come, in 2016.

when Hillary didn't win the nomination the last time.

I volunteered for Hillary in 2008, but didn't donate any money until the nominee was selected. Then I donated my time and money to Obama.

I understand people will squabble about who they want as the nominee, but when it gets to push time, I hope all are willing to bury their hatchets and work together to get our nominee elected, whoever it may be.

I truly hope that it will be more civil this time after the primaries no matter who gets the nomination.

what I find most disturbing about this thread is that notion that behavior is only sexist if it goes so far as to simply oppose any all women for the office. Yes, that behavior surely is sexist, but it is hardly the only sexist behavior. Many times, even here, Hillary has been criticized for behavior that is never criticized when male politicians do the very same thing. that is sexism pure and simple.

Too much of a broad generalization as to why people might or might not like HRC. The reasons can range from whimsical to outright hatred.

Frankly I think that DU is somewhat left of the Democratic party in general, and a lot of people here don't think that Secretary Clinton is liberal enough. I disagree with them.

So I imagine "they" will also be accusing us of sexism because we don't love Hillary enough.

All part of the same Third Way Fantasy world.

Regards,
Zorra
Minority Group Female Feminist.

Even right wingers I'm not sure about. But since their president is only a figurehead they might be ok with a white female president. She's still white

But they will say sexist things. I can already hear than calling it bills third term

I think it's based on her connections and her message.

Just about everyone has biases, and many of those biases are based off gender, sex, skin color, religion, etc.

However, that doesn't mean people's opposition to HRC is based off sexual biases, especially since so many support Warren.

of being sexist - not really honest, but clever.

Bryant

the Democrats war on women.

The point is that, no, opposition to Hillary is not because she's a woman. [n/t]

Opposition from others might be for other reasons.

She won't force environmental and economic concerns onto the agenda, she's too close to wall street....and on and on. That's not sexism, it's just what is.

Although the Republican opposition may be laced with sexism.

Not all, not even a majority, but enough to notice. I am always suspicious of an attack that consists almost entirely of name-calling, and I see a great many posts and that is all their contents. Mind you, I don't mind that you don't like Hillary (even if you have no logical reason for that position), just say so! Don't provide a wishy-washy nonsensical 'reason'.

..and this should have been a poll to illustrate the obvious choice.

Is too republican for me.
A Democrat she ain't.

But just because a Democrat is not a supporter of HRC does not make them sexist. If a Democrat, or a Republican for that matter, is critical of President Obama on an issue does not automatically mean they are racist.

Elizabeth Warren 2016!!

http://www.elizabethwarrenforpresident.com/

Because most of the Democrats opposing HRC are supporting Warren.

Simple as that.

but because I do not trust her I would love for our candidate to be Elisabeth Warren.

I think the question could be asked how many people are "FOR" HRC because she is a female?

but I would LOVE to vote for Senator Elizabeth Warren.

It's a ridiculous suggestion cause I have trouble because of sexism, mostly from a husband. But some of the guys might agree with that suggestion (not many in DU)... The ladies in here have tamed them.

There are other reasons and I'm too tired to mention them, except for the latest, putting down Obama (that's the way I saw it), and perhaps, not an accusation, just a thought, that other people were encouraged to do the same.

I have an enquiring mind too. If you find out that it's sexism, let us all know. I bet the guys won't put up with that.