platform, isn't she? If she needs to emphasize women, this is just the logical thing to expect. IMO and all that.
As Bernie supporters are constantly told - this is politics. Deal with it. As a woman, I think running on a woman-centric platform is not the best idea. The "woman" thing gets no points from me. it is not as if the other candidates are AGAINST women.

Wha?

This is how far around the bend the road has gone......

saying this is POLITICS. You know, like y'all are always harping at Bernie supporters, telling us that politics is rough. Well, yeah. It is rough. Ignore it. This is what happened last time Hillary ran, it is what happened when Ferraro ran. Some at DU iare not above calling GOP women witches or whatever.

I am saying it is to be expected. A campaign that did not expect it or whines about it is an unprepared campaign.

Because its Hillary.... I get it Sister.

Losing your Democratic way supporting the Independent...

Back pedalling is not working on me....

Whatever. The DNC accepted Bernie. Take that problem up with them.

Meanwhile, why on earth would you think that I care about your approval?

Oh, and Warren would have been subjected to the same tactics. it is not just Hillary. It is not right, but it is politics, and again, Not Just Hillary.

Because you are forgetting where you came from....

Now its all "not just Hillary"......some how that makes it all palatable to you.....

Last edited Sun Sep 6, 2015, 03:50 PM - Edit history (1)

So would Bernie supporters. Have seen nothing like that, at all, at least from the opposing campaign.

Rather, it's about Hillary's Third Way politics, anger at her perceived arrogance, and her appallingly bad judgement. Oh yes, and the falsity of her campaign memes piss a lot of people off.

Bernie supporters are informed daily that politics is rough, and to expect the worst, and if you can't take it, you should not be campaigning.
You seriously were not expecting this? I would ignore it, not complain about it. POLITICS.

We get it...believe me.....we get it...

Now we know where you stand on the issues Sister!

It is the issues I care about, not gender.
The "sister" thing is a little bossy, though. Weird.

I guess you really aren't "my Sister" after all!

I think I remember someone once said...."Women's Rights are Human Rights"!

but then you just don't care about issues of gender do you? Ignore the Gender issues at our peril!

Why Does the US Still Have So Few Women in Office?
At the current rate of progress, it will take nearly 500 years for women to reach fair representation in government.

http://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-us-still-have-so-few-women-office/

Leaders in electing women include Sweden (45 percent female representation at the national level), Finland (42.5 percent), Denmark and the Netherlands (39 percent) and Germany (36.5 percent). Most of their political parties prioritize recruitment of female candidates, some even requiring “positive quotas” where half their candidates are women. And their societies have sensible policies in areas like childcare that make it easier for legislators to balance their service with their families.

But the research of representation experts like the late Professor Wilma Rule has shown that, in addition to these positive quotas, the biggest reason for female candidates’ success in these advanced democracies is the use of “fair representation” electoral systems, also known as proportional representation.

and HOGWASH!

Supported decision to target Osama bin Laden. (Sep 2013)
Would have never diverted attention from Afghanistan. (Jan 2008)
After 9/11:Those helping terrorists would feel “wrath” of US. (Jun 2007)
1960s conversion to liberalism based on opposing Vietnam. (Jun 2007)
At Wellesley in ‘68, steered anti-war movement within system. (Jun 2007)
I have seen firsthand terrorists’ terrible damage. (Jun 2007)
Ok to target Al Qaeda in Pakistan; we did that 10 years ago. (Jan 2006)
Strategizing about Pakistan destabilizes a nuclear power. (Aug 2007)
Iran

Policy of prevention, not containment, on Iranian nukes. (Jan 2013)
Trust but verify Iran: goal is diplomacy & open inspections. (Jan 2013)
Massive retaliation from US if Iran attacks Israel. (Apr 2008)
Continue diplomatic engagement with Iran. (Dec 2007)
Believed, with others, that Iran was pursuing nuclear weapon. (Dec 2007)
Pledge that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb. (Oct 2007)
Rushing to war with Iran vs. doing nothing is a false choice. (Oct 2007)
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard promotes terrorism. (Sep 2007)
Prevent Iran from becoming nuclear power by diplomacy first. (Sep 2007)
Rule out nukes against Iran. (Aug 2007)
Iran having a nuclear weapon is absolutely unacceptable. (Jun 2007)
Iraq War

I got it wrong on 2002 Iraq War vote. (Jun 2014)
OpEd: Iraq war follows tradition of active US leadership. (Jun 2012)
OpEd: 2003 Iraq vote unmistakably authorized war. (Nov 2010)
2002: Saddam gave sanctuary to terrorists including Al Qaeda. (Oct 2010)
2007: Avoided war apology to avoid "flip-flopper" label. (Jan 2010)
2007: Opposed funding Iraq War; no escalation. (Aug 2009)
2002: Saddam gave aid to Al Qaeda terrorists. (Oct 2008)
Up to the Iraqis to decide the future they will have. (Feb 2008)
Some tactical success in Iraq, but no strategic success yet. (Feb 2008)
Leaving 130,000 troops in Iraq is irresponsible abdication. (Jan 2008)
Have nearly all combat troops out in a year. (Jan 2008)
Voted against precedent of US subordinate to UN in Iraq. (Jan 2008)
Iraq war authorization was not authority for preemption. (Jan 2008)
Told by the White House how the war resolution would be used. (Jan 2008)
Withdrawing troops is dangerous, including 100,000 civilians. (Jan 2008)
No military solution in Iraq; this debate motivates solution. (Jan 2008)
Called war on terror “Bush’s war” but has played active role. (Nov 2007)
2002: Accepted connection between Saddam & Al Qaeda. (Nov 2007)
Leave combat troops in Iraq only for conterterrorism. (Sep 2007)
Pentagon calls her unpatriotic for asking about exit plan. (Jul 2007)
Bush misused authorization for war. (Jun 2007)
The Iraq war is Bush’s war. (Jun 2007)
Iraq war wouldn’t have happened had the inspectors been sent. (Jun 2007)
It was a mistake to trust Bush on his judgment to wage war. (Jun 2007)
This war is up to Iraqi people to win or lose, not the US. (Apr 2007)
No permanent bases, but continuing residual force in Iraq. (Apr 2007)
Takes responsibility for Iraq war vote, but not a mistake. (Feb 2007)
OpEd: Voting for war enabled criticizing how it was waged. (Oct 2005)
2002 Iraq speech criticized both Saddam and U.N. (Feb 2004)
2002: Attacking Iraq "not a good option" but authorized it. (Feb 2004)
Middle East

Not helping Free Syrian Army left vacuum for ISIS to fill. (Aug 2014)
Don't demand complete moratorium on Israeli settlement. (Jun 2014)
2012: We helped Syrian rebels, but we should have done more. (Jun 2014)
Invested in Israel: negotiate a ceasefire in Gaza. (Jun 2014)
I wanted to arm Syrian rebels, along with regional partners. (Jun 2014)
Obama rejected her 2012 plan to arm the Syrian rebels. (Aug 2013)
Clinton-Gates combo won push for Afghan surge. (Jun 2012)
Supports border security fence in Israel. (Oct 2006)
Cut off US aid if Palestine declares a state unilaterally. (Oct 2000)
Focuses on increasing relationship between US and Israel. (Oct 2000)
Support Israel in finding a safe and secure peace. (May 2000)
Extend peace treaties to Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese. (Nov 1999)
Russia

Putin's annexing Crimea plays outdated zero-sum game. (Jun 2014)
Putin wants to reassert Russia's dominance in its own areas. (Jun 2014)
Contain Russia or Putin will expand beyond Crimea. (Apr 2014)
Voting Record

Iraq war vote was meant to be used as coercive diplomacy. (Jan 2008)
Voted against Levin Amendment: it gave UN veto over US. (Jan 2008)
Voted for Iraq war based on available info; now would not. (Apr 2007)
Critic of Iraq war, but won’t recant 2002 vote in its favor. (Nov 2006)
Regrets Bush’s handling of war, but not her war vote. (Oct 2006)
Voted YES on designating Iran's Revolutionary Guards as terrorists. (Sep 2007)
Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007)
Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006)
Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)
Voted YES on requiring on-budget funding for Iraq, not emergency funding. (Apr 2005)
Voted YES on $86 billion for military operations in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Oct 2003)
Voted YES on authorizing use of military force against Iraq. (Oct 2002)
Condemns anti-Muslim bigotry in name of anti-terrorism. (Oct 2001)
No troop surge: no military escalation in Iraq. (Jan 2007)
Deploy UN multinational peacekeeping force in Darfur. (Jul 2007)
Require Congress' approval before military action in Iran. (Oct 2007)

http://www.ontheissues.org/Hillary_Clinton.htm

Oh and lest we forget was rated 100% by SANE..

Political Group Ratings: by SANE on peace issues
Source: SANE website
Peace Action, the merger of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE) and The Freeze, has effectively mobilized for peace and disarmament for over forty years. As the nation's largest grassroots peace group we get results: from the 1963 treaty to ban above ground nuclear testing, to the 1996 signing of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, from ending the war in Vietnam, to blocking weapons sales to human rights abusing countries. We are proof that ordinary people can change the world. At Peace Action we believe...

That every person has the right to live without the threat of nuclear weapons.
That war is not a suitable response to conflict.
That America has the resources to both protect and provide for its citizens.

As the Pentagon’s budget soars to $400 billion, 17% of American children live in poverty. For what the US will spend on Missile Defense in one year we could: put over a million children through Head Start OR provide healthcare for over 3.5 million children OR create over 100,000 units of affordable housing OR hire over 160,000 elementary school teachers. At Peace Action our priorities are clear.

Having this "discussion" is detrimental to the female gender.

This "discussion" is about the likely First Female President..

We have fallen to 58th place behind Indonesia in female government roles in society....but sssshhhhh we are not supposed to takk about that huh? Why talk of that is just "gender baiting"

Just so you dont forget where we stand on equality.


Did you tell Black people that talked about Obama's unfair treatment by the press ...that discussing that is "race baiting" too?

truly revolve on a dyad. Nor must we always compare ourselves with others to see where we fall. If she is the best qualified by my own determination, I'll vote for her. If not, I will vote for a "him", but it won't be based on the gender. IMO, that in itself marginalizes women. JMO and I've been around a long time.

And I was wrong....its much worse .


And compared to other nations, the United States is losing ground. America now ranks ninety-eighth in the world for percentage of women in its national legislature, down from 59th in 1998. That’s embarrassing: just behind Kenya and Indonesia, and barely ahead of the United Arab Emirates. Only five governors are women, including just one Democrat, and twenty-four states have never had a female governor. The percentage of women holding statewide and state legislative offices is less than 25 percent, barely higher than in 1993. Locally, only twelve of our 100 largest cities have female mayors.

98th!!!!

Cruz isn't against women, news to me.

It's not just because she's a woman, but she's a woman who is running with the explicit focus on highlighting women's rights, the injustices and indignities suffered by women not just in America, but around the world; and that she dares to defy the right-wing mass media's expectations of women in politics.

All of this is unacceptable to those with power and privilege who are desperately trying to cling to their power and privilege.

We are the most under represented Demographic in politics today....we have fallen far behind the rest of the world on gender equality.....

Your advice to her is to ignore that fact and that we are over 50% of the population? This is your advice?

And you are a fan of hers right?

And compared to other nations, the United States is losing ground. America now ranks ninety-eighth in the world for percentage of women in its national legislature, down from 59th in 1998. That’s embarrassing: just behind Kenya and Indonesia, and barely ahead of the United Arab Emirates. Only five governors are women, including just one Democrat, and twenty-four states have never had a female governor. The percentage of women holding statewide and state legislative offices is less than 25 percent, barely higher than in 1993. Locally, only twelve of our 100 largest cities have female mayors.

But Hillary should ignore gender politics.....yeah that is what the Right said to Obama too!

treatment. Remember when they anointed her as inevitable? No one complained then. Now that scrutiny is being had the sexism card is being thrown around. Can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Anyway, you are correct.

Whatever an African American and a woman do they have to do it better than a white man to get the same credit. Look at our great president. Given that I can't imagine how difficult life is for an African American woman.

Duh!

Every word she speaks gets microscopic treatment by her pundits. I think her response to Andrea Mitchell was great.


http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/is-hillary-clinton-getting-the-woman-treatment-from-the-national-media/#.VexFGY6U8AI.twitter


.....Clinton has been heavily criticized for not opening up and talking to the media since she started her campaign. She tried to turn her caution into an asset, defending her lawyerly style as the more presidential when compared, say, to Trump's crowd-pleasing rants. “People say I’m careful about what I say,” Clinton said on MSNBC. “That’s because for 20 years I’ve seen the importance of the president of the United States, the leader not only of our nation but the world, having to send messages that will be received by all kinds of people. Loose talk, threats, insults have all kinds of consequences.”

But her relative silence might be the best solution to the problem women face in leadership as soon as they talk. Yale psychologist Victoria L. Brescoll has studied women’s communication styles in Washington and in the C-suites. She found powerful, veteran male senators spoke more on the Senate floor than their junior colleagues, but that powerful females were relatively silent. In another study, Brescoll asked professional men and women to evaluate the competence of chief executives who voiced their opinions more or less frequently. Respondents rated male executives who spoke more often 10 percent higher in terms of competence than their peers. But woe to the female executives who spoke more than their peers: Men and women both ranked them 14 percent lower.

Women’s leadership coaches have been grappling with the authenticity problem, but other than observing that it exists, they don’t have any solutions. Consultant Ida Abbott of Management Solutions, has written, “Most people think of authenticity as 'being yourself,’ but…this is not easy for women to do.... Many men also struggle with authenticity, but the path is narrower and more treacherous for women.”

Psychologist Nina Burrowes, author of The Little Book on Authenticity, pointed out that the root word of authenticity is related to author: To be authentic, one must not necessarily be honest, but be the author of one’s own story. For Hillary Clinton, authenticity might no longer be an option. Her story has been written and rewritten by others and is constantly being revised, updated hourly, rarely by her. Her relative silence in the early part of the campaign can be seen as an effort based in sound social science, to create a blank page where she gets to be the author.

Supporters of Sanders on DU will lament that she is avoiding the public eye....but deny its because they really want to nitpick whatever she says with a fine tooth comb to twist it into some bullshit narrative about her....that her record clearly proves quite the opposite. They want her to speak so they can use her words to "prove" this imagined doom that will happen should she win....

so sad to see so much crap about a good Democrat. You are spot on.

It's easy to come out to the podium and talk on one hand, but with the other hand outsourcing was promoted and very little done to bring job security to families in the US.

I think it's all very self-serving and hypocritical.

And then she has the gall to joke about wiping a server hard drive.

"What, like with a cloth or something?"

Really, Hillary?

That sounds a little like, well, it just sounds too much like a gender stereotype housewife thingy, and scripted.

There, I said it, that's what it sounds like.

Sounds like YOU sure think it sounds that way.....thatts what "wiping" something is to you apparently....wiping something with a rag is only something a "lowly housewife" does huh?

Only house wives use rags in this world right?

I guess the ONLY people in this world weilding rags and wiping things clean are women huh?

The Republican debaters
http://insider.foxnews.com/2015/08/07/body-language-expert-gop-debate-candidates-trump-jeb-bush-paul-carson

Who also wrongly thinks HRC's campaign is too!

Real good "instincts".....

Leaders in electing women include Sweden (45 percent female representation at the national level), Finland (42.5 percent), Denmark and the Netherlands (39 percent) and Germany (36.5 percent). Most of their political parties prioritize recruitment of female candidates, some even requiring “positive quotas” where half their candidates are women. And their societies have sensible policies in areas like childcare that make it easier for legislators to balance their service with their families.

But the research of representation experts like the late Professor Wilma Rule has shown that, in addition to these positive quotas, the biggest reason for female candidates’ success in these advanced democracies is the use of “fair representation” electoral systems, also known as proportional representation.

They want to disrupt and derail.

How will we ever know?

because she had the real deal...experience, boldness, charisma, leadership et al. I'm not voting for Hillary because she's a woman or because Bernie is is a man. I like what he says. The meme that if women don't vote for Hillary, they just don't "get it" is old, tired and working against her, frankly.

Edit: She's gotten way more press coverage, online coverage, print coverage than any candidate. That doesn't square with the "Poor Hillary" concept.

Democrats have been treated like shit by the media since at least the mid-90s. It doesn't their gender, race or how much money they have, they are treated poorly.
I remember Howard Dean getting grilled by Tim Russert on Meet the Press back in '03. Kerry, the Clintons, Obama, Dean, it's all the same. It's one reason I stopped watching political TV, because it was no way "fair and balanced" if you were a Democrat or a liberal.

All this justification for the Bias against Hillary being supported by Sanders followers....

Things that make you go...hmmmmmm

Since that is the attitude his supporters took with BLM...looks like he is going to have problems with gender issues now too....Good luck getting women to vote for Bernie with THAT attitude!

happening and why it was to be expected?

Lots of women are supporting Bernie, you know. I believe most of them would have voted or supported Liz Warren. Who is one of those women politicians.

You keep throwing in the "support the democrat" thing - is this the reincarnation of "Bernie is not a democrat, so vote for Hillary" or something, since "Vote for Hillary, she is a woman!" is not going to work. Although I would happily vote for Warren, if she were running. it is about The Issues.

Really, a lot of your ripostes are either incorrect or totally not on the subject at hand. And I don't believe anybody here cares about anybody here going "....hmmmmmmmm". is that some sort of implied threat, as if you were Joseph McCarthy and making a list and then were actually able to do something with the list? very odd.

positions, old or new. I had tremendous respect for her for the health care initiative while Bill was in office. i don't know how New Yorkers felt, but she won there. And Secretary of State, a little rocky, and now and ever since she's been cheered by the entire DNC, Senators, endorsements and tons of media coverage. Bernie? Almost nothing.

Oh, and I chuckle when I remember all the "sexist" posts about her hair dos. That doesn't matter much now, because it's all about Bernie's hair. It's even on T-shirts. Maybe that should be called making fun of men being half bald?

and they want to give the GOP a chance. cause HORSE RACES ARE MORE FUN WERK!