Minorities/Women: How do you feel about Powell, Rice, and Gonzales?

Really.

From my personal experience, in order to reach that level of trust among whites, and especially right-wing whites, you have to renounce your own kind. They would never accept you any other way.

I do not believe it has anything to do with color or race. Just as long as you are a "Yes Man" or "Woman"! Colin Powell, however, was never a fit. He was the only one that wanted to explore diplomatic means in order to deal with the Middle East. That is totally opposite of what the Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld agendas are.

Colin powell is gone. His was the only moderate voice there. Rice will be at state because she won't give bush any flak. Gonzales, I'm not sure. He allowed the teenager to have the abortion... but he also signed off on the prison stuff in Iraq. My jury is out on him.

..To be honest I'd rather ask them how they feel about a really demeaning phrase which keeps appearing on this site,..currently demeaning women, but not long ago demeaned Blacks.....The phrase being _____ is Bush's "Bitch"...I saw it the other day regarding Tony Blair and now using John McCain...I'm not, by the way, defending those individuals....I AM opposed to this ugly phrase which is virulently demeaning...currently, as mentioned, to Women...But in the past (before it became "safer" to shit on women rather than minorities?)..I've heard it as "..is/is not.."your nigger"
..Both flagrantly demeaning.. "bitch" being to gender what "nigger" is to race.

..I have, by the way, reported three different readings (within two days) to the Moderaters.


Martinolich

context you have referenced.

As used as a label to a woman that speaks her mind and knows what she wants, yes, but in the context you have complained of, no.

Political correctness is one reason why the moral majority has such a strong hold in this country. (imho)

When we take personal responsibilty for our words and actions and try to be understanding of others, and not so judgmental, maybe our lives will be simpler. Little things like the use of a word won't offend us as much. Teach by example (would Jesus or Gandi start a crusade against the use of a word, or would they simply try to teach by example and not use the word?)

...First of all, I find it hard to believe that a woman would prefer to have her very humanity criticized, rather than her outspokeness. (Yes, "Bitch" as used here is LITERALLY demeaning)...substitute the word "nigger" in the same context and see if you feel as comfortable advising acceptance.

.....I don't know if you're male or female, but I think you need to read what I've said..and be honest with yourself about it.

....."Teaching by example" in this case, won't work for women..at least those with enough self-respect to refrain from denigrating themselves ...In any case, I'm not Jesus or Ghandi...but I feel confident they'd both be brave enough to speak out against demeaning people because of their condition of birth...be that body COLOR...or body CONSTRUCTION...

"bitch" - which means female dog. In prison or on the streets, the term "bitch" means someone that another controls or dominates. The phrase being _____ is Bush's "Bitch"..." It is a word and when used to say Blair is the weed's bitch, it is not referring to Blair as a woman, but as a female dog (poodle) or as one dominated and controlled by another. The demeaning use of the word is not towards women, but towards the person that is dominated or controlled, like a female dog. Knowing what a word means is useful before taking offense to its use.

Why you take personal offense to that and see it as sexist escapes me.

..Merh, I know EXACTLY what it means...and what do you think men mean when they ADDRESS a woman as "Bitch"..?!....why do you think "female dogs"...are equated with "controlled and powerless"..?...because they see females..of the human variety..that way as well.
...Even MEN know this is used to deliberately debase women....I suspect Merh, that you yourself are female...why?...because I read your profile and see that you - like myself - are listed as "gender unspecified"...Do you really think any MALES would want to be "gender unspecified"....I would guess 99% of "unspecified genders" are female...Why?...because they know the insult, condescension and abuse that females are vulnerable to..even, by our would-be "progressive" brothers...

That is what I'm pointing out here.

using something as baseless and unrelated as "Blair is *'s Bitch" is ridiculous and does nothing more than harm the struggle of women.

Taking personal offense to phrases that are not directed to women or related to women and beginning a crusade because you are a woman and you feel you have a right to, only weakens the struggle for womens rights as you and your stance appear to be emotional and therefore, not as credible as someone that uses reason and logic.

Pick your battles wisely, don't fight for me over some stupid use of a word.

Mehr.....Please read your own message again...Maybe you can show me the "reason and logic" YOU are using?..Instead of presuming to "lecture" me, why don't you ask yourself why you're not able to answer me, point by point?.....

...I suspect you are young and/or not well acquainted with feminist literature and issues....Do yourself a favor and read.

..and no, I don't fight battles for those too obtuse or ill-educated to recognize their own interests.

P.S. It's a sad, but ironic truism that most women - even supposed "progressives" - put everyone else's interests before their own...which is why they're still on the bottom.

the name is merh.

I don't have to answer your post, point by point. You have your opinions and I have mine. That being said, in my opinion, it is women like you that harm the "cause" more than you help it when you take offense to the slightest things.

If you don't like a thread, ignore it.

..because one or two posts ago you just admitted your OWN tendency to misspell!...You're actually kind of funny!
..."harm to the cause"?..."offense to the slightest things"?...Apparently not...check out the post by Bloom who has just done posted that the "use of the term bitch" has been argued at length here...and that it remains "a significant issue" for many people.

..Ignore a thread?...Nahh..I think I'll just ignore YOU.

:shrug:

..Good Girl!!!

:smoke:

...You misspelled MISSPELL!...it's not "mispell"...you ARE funny!

a name that was right in front of me. My, some folks take things so darned personal, makes you wonder why. :shrug:

that you wonder about a lot of things...:evilgrin:

Learn to spell "Gandhi."

..see the Larger Point...I'm sure "Gandhi" would.."Genius"(sic)!

for considering you a minor point. There is a steady stream of new folk with low posts that enjoys using DU to insult people. They never do become a "Larger Point" (sic).

...No, H20, we're not talking about ME, or YOU, we're talking about THE SUBJECT...as for insulting people..check your own posts..you're the one who started on me - for spelling, of all things..(sic)!?

you may do many things. But they will never include being able to tell me what I am able to talk about. I am talking about you. You decided to attack merh. Among the things you focused on was her misspelling a word. I pointed out that you have erred in spelling Gandhi's name. I do not have any need of checking my posts. I remember.

Merh is one of my dearest friends on DU. She has never been the type of person who would insult any group of people, such as women, ethnic minorities, or any other group that the democratic party advocates for on DU. You had a dispute with her about words, not people. You quickly escalated that into insulting her as a person.

If I have ever had a disagreement with merh -- and there are times we strongly disagree -- I have no problem telling her. Likewise, I am not having any problem telling you what it is you have done that is in error.

..What you clearly DON'T remember is that it was Mehr (and no I don't care if the spelling is right)..who criticized MY spelling first...Before lecturing, you really should get your facts straight...I agree that I was a bit snappish in my later replies to her..but I did First try and explain my views calmly...It was she who started the petty insults and off-the-mark ranting....She's still at it..responding to my posts to other people..
...And oh yeah, big man...you don't tell me what I CAN talk about either...and I AM talking about YOU!

Chihuahua to bark at the dry bones of a great lion .... especially when they are on a screen.

I had been satisfied to leave you the last word below. I recognize that those with borderline personality disorders place great value on that type of thing.

To clarify: I did not tell you what to talk about. I merely attempted, in a kind and gentle manner, to point out one of the errors in your thinking that was creating a problem for you. While this is an open forum, new folks generally try to be polite, rather than scold some of the DU elders such as merh.

I enjoy talking with you. Please feel free to bring up any subject that pleases you. I'm always willing to chat.

...I'm starting to get the picture here, H2,..as to further chats, well, I'll put it on hold....Peace and love in the meantime.

..... oh, you won't put them on hold for long.

but there were several lengthy and heated official threads for the purpose of venting about the way the word "bitch" is used by some on this board - earlier this year.

I won't mush through the whole thing again - but it is a significant issue to a lot of people.

in the world, much more important. imho.

I guess I am lucky, my parents taught me "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me".

It is funny what control we have relative to what is or is not an insult or a put down. Kind of like what control we have relative to our own happiness.

..I think you're a little "out of touch"...and now I will press whatever I need to ignore you.

..You're right, I wasn't here, I'm new..But thank you for this information and for acknowledging that it it IS, in fact, an "issue"...I appreciate it.

his name is "Gandhi." It is important to be respectful enough to spell his name correctly. Thank you for future attention to this simple spelling.

I misspelled his name and didn't mean to, I will be more careful next time. ;-)

You know me, my posts often contain typos, I think my mind works faster than my fingers. :silly: At least, that is the excuse I give the boss! :evilgrin:

If it is important enough to use him as a source in their post, it would be nice to have enough respect to learn to spell his name. It is far more offensive to me than the use of a word for a female dog. Gandhi was a holy man.

...Number two, the problem with using "the word for a female dog" is that it's being used for female HUMANS..if you want to emulate the holy man, you'll show more concern about THAT than spelling errors...

I guess that ends it with #1.

..you can check it...and yes, I think we can stop now.

I pointed out the correct spelling of Gandhi's name to her in an e-mail. Merh is my sister. We have no problem pointing out each other's errors. But we do it politely. With the utmost respect. And, like any good brother, I expect other's to treat my sister with respect. Merh is one of the most insightful people on DU. I do not care in the least if you or anyone else disagrees with her. In fact, I would probably have posted a response supporting the position that we consciously make an effort not to use the specific word in question, had the debate been focused on that issue. Perhaps more than any single other DU member, I am concerned with the meaning of words. I think that Sangh0 is a close second.

is great, but, again,there's a larger lesson here..and that is that if you had treated ME with "politeness and respect"..we wouldn't be involved in this pointless pissing contest...I'm sure you want the last word, but frankly, this is getting old...I'm outa here...

with politeness and respect. It would be rude for me to have not reminded you that there is a correct way to spell "Gandhi."

I have not taken part in your silly "contest." It is, however, interesting to note that you view a simple conversation as a contest, and that you bring such colorful expressions of your character to play.

I note that while I had indeed not responded to your post here earlier, you felt the need to stir the pot up above. That's fine. If you really feel the need to converse with the Water Man, I'm here for you.

I thought it was a prison term, meaning power over someone, using sexual force.

...Oh yes...When I was young (not that long ago)..I often heard "I'm not your nigger"...You probably still hear it in racist/red neck circles, but in middle-class politesse it is (rightly of course)no longer heard... It seems, unfortunately, you now hear the derogatory female term, because, sadly, It's more "acceptable" (safer?) to demean women than minority males...I find it appalling...especially in a so-called "progressive" forum which claims to forbid "sexist remarks" and extoll sensitivity on sexual matters.

NO HUMAN BEING (YES, women are HUMAN)..should be SPIT ON..for their "condition of birth"...yes, femaleness, as much as race, is a condition of birth...why it's so despised, I still don't know.

Political Correctness was shot down years ago by the right-wing. And you know what? It's liberating. As soon as the nation becomes civilized again, we may reconsider, but until then, the term perfectly explains the power struggles that go on every day.

...really, Backlash?...Then why is it that you don't hear the term "nigger" much anymore?...Where and why is there a discrepancy between the dignity of gender and that of race?...and why is it that so-called progressives like you only invoke the negativity of "political correctness" when women are concerned?*


....Susan Brownmiller, author of the classic "Against Our Will" had an answer:

"The liberal consciousness, so quick to recognize the link between (verbal denigration and abuse)when it comes to Jews and minorities is fiercely obdurate when it comes to the denigration of women"....

..I've paraphrased, but you can read the original if you want...I suspect however, like the liberal men she mentions, you're not much interested in women's pain.

The point is, that the dialogue changed with Rush Limbaugh & Ann Coulter who demonized minorities as inferior and all those who demonized the poor as welfare queens. THAT's what I meant by PC is dead.

Liberals were just too nice when it came to fighting in the gutter and that's where the battle is today. That's why you lost every time. Conservatives EXPECTED liberals just to turn the other cheek. And thus, with no rebuttal, the conservatives filled the vacuum and have monopolized this country's dialoque.

I know you don't have to use dicey words to make your point. You can land someone flat on his ass with a good command of the language, just like the british do. But we as Americans haven't acquired the talent for it yet. And quite frankly, those who do make the attempt, fall into the trap of being called, "elite." Isn't that sad, that the Republicans, who criticize the poor for being uneducated, would turn around and call someone who is educated, too elite?

For now, I am satisfied that the conservatives are a little perplexed because Liberals are not being so nice anymore.

reported three different readings (within two days) to the Moderaters."
Well, good for you. I call women who hurt others "bitches" quite often. Miss Rice has hurt quite a lot of people. I think she qualifies. I am, by the way, a woman.

..I was referring to the use of "bitch" as an ugly synonym for women...not as a character trait..as in "bitchy"...

That is much more offensive than saying "Blair is *'s bitch". You sure have your priorites messed up (imho).

:WTF:

...Are you too dense to get that I REALLY don't respect YOUR priorities either?!....Tell it to someone who cares, babe!

all who use this term are insensitive individuals, yet, you can call another woman or person bitchy and that is cool and you can call another person babe, but that is not insensitive, insulting and/or degrading?

:shrug:

B.

She was/may still be, and advisor for Monsanto - a company that genetically alters food. She spent part of her last 4 years working for the Bush Administration, arguing against labeling genetically altered food as genetically altered.

Her genetically altered food support since getting in with the Bush Administration, pretty much nails her as corrupted by those corporations. She is a SCARY woman because she doesn't have health or saftey concern for people, she is conscience-less.

As national security advisor, she is an excellent pick to get someone in that won't have basic moral principles. She will tell Bush what he wants to hear, and she will be his fall guy - in that the administration can point to her and say, "the National Security Advisor advised us too...", even though they are telling her what to say.

I believe she will lie, cheat and steal, without batting an eye.
Of course that means, she fits in fine there.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

Especially Gonzales, I hate that fucker. He's just another right-wing asshole sellout, thats gonna screw minorities over. Wants to fit in with all the conservative white Repukes.

These former minorities are all white-folks now. They should not be trusted.

PNAC lackeys, no different than the other members of this diabolical administration. The fact that they are Black, Hispanic or female doesn't influence me in the least about how I think of them. If Rice, Powell and Gonzales were all white men, I would think no differently about them than I do today and I don't like any of them. I think they are a lying, mafiosa type criminals just like their boss.

the same.

I think Condi's a shrub crony out to protect him and not our country. Just because she's a woman doesn't make that acceptable to me.

I am saddened that they are being willingly used to do harm to other people of color, the poor and those that believe in civil rights.

I suppose you could equate it to 2 Blacks and 1 Hispanic strongly supporting slavery in 1860.

"When people are trying to kill you and when they attack because they hate freedom, other disputes from Frankenfood to bananas and even important issues like the environment suddenly look a bit different." - Condoleeza Rice, George Bush's National Security Adviser

eom

argument. It ranks up there with.. "They're just jealous."

Please. Yet another myth Bushco has been permitted to sell to the masses.

How can anyone possibly believe that??? Honestly???

Also, people don't realize that there are many conservative Hispanics every bit as elitist as their European American peers.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Cleita - as long as we're under attack the environment and franken foods (genetically altered) won't matter. BTW: If you're going to support gentically altered food companies, it would be best if we stay under attack.

I'm having a hard time finding Condoleezas link to Monsanto. I remember it was a big deal about a year ago and now, all I'm finding is her Chevron Advisor link. I'll search further.

-------------------

Here is the Bush's cabinet with Monsanto links, yes some just resigned:

John Ashcroft Attorney General, in charge of environmental enforcement. Got $1.7 million from oil, chemical and paper companies for his Senate campaign, because they were grateful for Ashcroft's opposition to funding environmental enforcement, voting to rollback clean water protections and letting mining companies dump cyanide and other wastes on public land. One of his major donors was Monsanto (the maker of PCBs.) His recent policies violate American principles of privacy, free speech, civil liberties, etc

Ann Veneman Secretary of Agriculture. Formerly a lawyer with a firm specializing in representing agribusiness giants and biotech corporations. In California, she encouraged policies helping giant corporate farms squeeze out family-owned farms --- so that now, for example, only four companies process 80% of American produced beef. Served on Calgene Inc. Board of Directors, a subsidiary of Monsanto (which gave us PCBs, bovine growth hormone, Terminator seeds, genetic manipulation of our food, etc.) Participated in International Policy Council of Agriculture, Food and Trade, funded by Monsanto, Cargill, Archer-Daniels Midland, Kraft, and Nestle (Perrier).

Tommy Thompson Secretary of Health, was a supporter of Monsanto in Wisconsin. He received $50,000 from biotech firms in his election run, and used state funds to set up a $317 million dollar biotech zone in Wisconsin. He was one of 13 state governors who launched a campaign, funded by Monsanto, to persuade Americans that genetically modified crops were safe. As Governor of Wisconsin, Thompson was always a friend of the paper industry and obstructed Fox River cleanup and compensation for many years. Between 1990 and 1997, Thompson received $155,553 from the paper industry for his re-election campaigns, and much more from the insurance industry and lawfirms representing the paper industry. (see Thompson Defends Fox River Polluters)

Larry Thompson --- Appointed as Deputy Attorney General, under Ashcroft. Had served as Monsanto's in-house counsel.

Linda Fisher Deputy Admin. of EPA despite prior position as a Monsanto Corporation executive. Fisher was one of Monsanto's top Washington D.C. lobbyists between 1995 and 2000. As Monsanto's Vice President for Government and Public Affairs, she represented Monsanto's interest in agriculture, biotechnology, pharmaceutical, environment, finance and trade issues, and managed the company's political action committee and political contribution funds. Monsanto spent $4 million on Washington DC lobbying in 1998, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.

Mitch Daniels Director of the Office of Management and Budget. Daniels was the vice-president of corporate strategy at Eli Lilly Pharmeceutical company. Eli Lilly and Monsanto developed the genetically engineered bovine growth hormone (BGH), which now contaminates our nation's milk supply.

---------

And then of course the Supreme Court:

Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Justice. Was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President George Bush, Senior. Not surprisingly, the deciding swing vote giving the Presidential Election to George, Jr. was made by this former lawyer for Monsanto Corporation.

the outrage against genetic modification of food.

sort of like that, only more so.

-----------------------------------
Would Jesus love a liberal? You bet!
http://timeforachange.bluelemur.com/

(white) I don't consider Condi a breakthrough for women. Quite the contrary. She seems to be so grateful for her position that she will blindly lead wherever her leader goes. She is loyal to a fault. And that costs us all. She was a failure as our national security advisor and doesn't deserve a promotion. "Bin Laden to Attack Within the United States." That was the Clinton report given to the Bush administration. Yet, Condi disavowed ever being warned. "Who ever would think people would fly planes into buildings?"
You. Condi. You were briefed at least twice on that scenario.
She's a Stepford Wife. She is not a role model. The irony is that she is the ultimate affirmative action: black and female. From an administration that doesn't support affirmative action. And she's not competent. No, the Condis set us back. They're the good little girls the Bushies like to trot out for the cameras.

I'm disgusted with all three of them. I am an African-American woman, and I find them all to be disgusting.

Now, I appreciate that Colin Powell has moderate views on issues like affirmative action (he's for it, and I agree with them). But I think he has allowed himself to be used by the Republican Party. He should have resigned in protest over the Iraq war. Also, he once said that Nigerians are not honest. He said it's just in their (Nigerians) nature to be dishonest. I find that comment so out of the mainstream, I don't even know how to respond.

I think Condi Rice has her head so far up Bush's behind, she wouldn't know the truth if it bit her. I think her nomination as Sec'y of State is a slap in the face to the family members of the victims of 9/11, who wanted her to testify so badly before the 9/11 Commission, and she fought tooth and nail against it until the WH and the Commission made that agreement.

Alberto Gonzales? I just call him The Torture Man. I think that says it all.

No longer. I am ashamed of him especially, because I think he once had a moral fiber that has been shredded by being so close to the vipers for so long. Rice is an incredible embarrasment to women, blacks and people who breath. Gonzales is a dangerous, dangerous man - evil first, Hispanic second.

(I'm a white woman)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1351296
The supposed Liberal half of the pundits on CNN’s The Capital Gang have already sounded the retreat regarding the nomination of Alberto Gonzalez for Attorney General with the words, “He’s got a great personal story, only one of eight siblings to go to college, and he maintains contact with them!”

While the Republican majority makes it unlikely that the nomination can be blocked, Gonzalez’s record, ideology, and role as Bush waterboy need thorough exposure and opposition. But the Democrats have to stay focused on those things and not allow the process to be framed on the basis of “ethnicity,” as in, “the first Hispanic, blah blah…”

During the ESTRADA hearings the beleaguered Democratic leaders actually stood firm and eventually won a rare victory, perhaps surprising even themselves, although the deciding factor might have been Estrada’s possible personal baggage instead of ideology. And almost all of the Hispanic organizations joined in opposing him based on his ideology.

With Gonzalez, the Republicans are springing yet again their “ethnic“ or “racial” trap that started with George I’s use of Clarence Thomas: Nominating a member of a minority group, perhaps not too bright or accomplished, but who toes the Conservative line, and, most of all, stymies the Democrats by their having to oppose somebody from one of their traditional constituencies. The payload of the “ethnic” gambit is to derail the vetting process, keeping attention away from the nominee’s record and ideological fanaticism.

During the Estrada hearings, Orrin Hatch was all over the media with a Shirley Temple pout, saying innocently, “How can the Democrats oppose this well qualified Hispanic?”

The answer then should have been, as now, “It is NOT about the ethnicity. That would be racism and quotas. It’s about the ideology and his record.”

This link covers his whole career: http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=246536

This link covers his role in the torture policy: http://lawofwar.org/Torture_Memos_analysis.htm (Home Page: http://lawofwar.org / )

is very happy with anyone that Bush* appoints. (Powell _seemed_ better than most before the UN thing.)


I think it stinks that he has his diverse-to-look-at group assembled.

It seems rather deceptive.

-- "My skin folk ain't necessarily my kin folk."

;)

Well, I'm Hispanic and a woman and I think that using these vile excuses for human beings is actually a smart ploy for the Bush administration. If Dems oppose them, they'll be labeled racist. Nevermind that these are some of the most rightwing and, yes, evil people to walk the face of the earth. I don't like them and I don't feel obligated to support them just because they are people of color. They don't represent my values.

makes them twice reviled in my eyes.

They are certainly not my idea of excellent role models for others of their genders or ethnicity. They're just part of *'s freaky little diversity circus.

Colin Powell is a gutless sell-out.

And Gonzales? Sorry, but those memos of his, arguing to legitimize indefinite detention, suspension of international treaties on the treatment of prisoners of war and civilian non-combatants, and authorizing torture -- that makes him a fucking war criminal.

...If not, maybe you should forgo the double standard and call Powell and Gonzalez "whores" too.

Yeesh, what a maroon.

..picking up on subtleties isn't your strong point.."Maroon"..!

...in that order

of race or gender. Shrub and Rumsfeld are no different, but we don't make a big deal about then being white men.

As a black person, I say there should be a special place in the netherworld for Condi, Colin, Clarence, Rod and the stupid black evangelicals who voted for this fraud.

at them for their twisted logic, and with bush trying to patheticly look like he's diverse.

Window dressing does not impress me.

Policies that "help" people do.

they're supporting these war crimes, no? no minority status changes that.

:grr:

Their race is irrelevant. They are incompetant and/or RW hacks.

higher cabinet positions then anybody else. so what's up with that dems.

tbe number of Republican African Americans in Congress. (hint: there aren't any)

see 2 both from georgie's admin. now we have a latino AG, from georgie's group. possibly going to have a black head at the scotus, and georgie will probably seat a latino female for his first scotus appointment. I'd say he's pretty far ahead.

these few appointments compared to the Democratic members of Congress leaves you woefully behind. Far ahead? You failed math, right?

if I failed math, you're behind in english.

only fitting that a Bushie would be so poor in math. With a 7 trillion deficit and the international disdain of scientists, math and science are hardly strong points of conservatives.
Good luck with the remedial lessons. We're here to help.

I'm sick of people (usually women or blacks in my LIBERAL area) defending Rice. Would they defend her if she was a white male with the exact same "achievements" ?

Martin Luther King dreamed we might someday judge people on the content of their character instead of their race. Okay, they all fail the test; they have no character.

On the Iraq situation, Powell destroyed whatever credibility he ever had. Rice and Gonzales never had any to lose.

As a woman, I am offended by those who argue against Rice on the basis of some alleged personal or sexual relationship with Bush. This is an old, stale argument used about women and it has been offensive to so many women that it gets tuned out regardless. I don't argue whether or not such an argument is true or false. I argue that it is a distraction and her supporters get to claim her opponents are all male chauvinist pigs who are probably also racists and that just clouds the issue. We lose credibility when we argue her sex life instead of her incompetence and untruthfulness. It is equally offensive to me to argue that I should support her because she is a woman. On the content of her character, SHE LIED and that cannot be excused.

I used to be bothered more by the "mature" white guys - Ashcroft, Rumsfield, Ridge, Thompson.... But since we got Gonzales in place of Ashcroft, I am not nearly as bothered by the others as I used to be since I am terrified to think about who might replace them - regardless of race or sex!