Why women voted for Hillary - in smilies (Last plea)

Other DU-ers have been far more articulate, but maybe simplicity will do it:

It was NOT this
:nopity:
Instead it was

for what media did with the so called tears
In conclusion

or you drive more women - possibly me as well to vote for Hillary

I agree totally.

We will get totally :spank: in the GE!

Let your :loveya: be your guide.



peace~:)

silly women like us are brainwashed by the media, and we are too emotional so that's exactly why we support Hillary!

other Dems to stop it. It's really at this point more troubling to me coming from our side then the loonies . I sincerely want to move past this - but it keeps blowing in my face - other campaigns exploiting it, Bill Maher praised video here, some DU selections of political cartoons - they all imply endorsement by democrats - and that drives me :nuke:

:silly:

:shrug:

Anger is an emotion - but I guess you men being so cerebral, wouldn't know it :shrug:

Don't make me mad, or I'll do something we both won't like!! It's toddler logic.

don't patronize me, don't demean me, don't stereotype me - that kind of mad.
It's a mad that lasts. It's a mad that's as legitimate as the one caused by racism.

That's the part I object to -- "it's all about me and how I feel".

Personally, I'm pissed off about all the race-based comments re: Obama. But that's not gonna make me switch my vote to him.

in the White House - because my priorities change right now. My self-respect as a woman moves higher and higher in ny reasons to pick a candidate. A little bit with every smarmy attack like yours. Until I may come to decide - the hell with everything else, it's what I care about. Mind you, there's not such a big difference in agendas between her and Obama my choice for Super Tuesday is : Gravel, Kucinich or Hillary.
And you know what? It's always personal - the reason for voting. Whether it's war,civil rights or the way women are treated in this country - they are all personal priorities.

spite, and gender reasons, and tears/choking up, and 'those men ganged up on that woman' reasons for voting for Hillary Clinton?

:argh:

I didn't think about it much before, it burns my guts lately.

Queen Hilary will teach them all a lesson!!! :sarcasm:
Just look at her positions. She is pro-war and pro-outsourcing and anti-worker and wants to make everybody buy manadatory private insurance without any guarantee of actual health care. She also seems to like the DLC idea of privatizing Social Security. Plus anything that her corporate donors want, they will get, the people and children be damned.
I guess that because she's a woman , then that makes her positions AOK in your eyes. If given a choice, I'd rather vote for Cynthia McKinney for President. BTW, she's a woman too but doesn't have fucked-up policies like Hillary does!
Whatever. I'll never vote for Hillary.

a bonus - in entertainment value.

If you read the OP, it wasn't a call to vote Hillary, but a plea to stop the offensive tack, so I wouldn't have to cast my vote based on that.
Neanderthals with castration phobia like you - they just glom on this, because it feeds into that fear. Most men I know are better than you - I have no qualms with "men", no reason to "get back" at them. Just the junta& propaganda. And you.

I have very precise reasons why I would not support Hillary in the primaries. I am VERY VERY politically informed. BUT since last Saturday when the sexist SHIT started right here on DU I have been defending Hillary Clinton. From the folks here who tried to make an issue out of her "passionate" answer to John Edwards remarks about change - trying to make it into the Dean scream, to the "crying" to the fucking iron my shirt chant.

What was SO SAD here at DU there were some god awful sexist shit going on and I don't even think some of the posters even realized what they were saying was SEXIST.

This has gotten me so PISSED off that I have found myself defending a woman who has DISAPPOINTED me beyond articulation - I will not vote for her in the primary - BUT I will vote for her in the GE IF she gets the nomination - something I was not so sure of before this crap started. So if there are women out there who haven't formed specific criteria for who they will vote for - or think it is six of one half a dozen of the other for the top three - you can bet your butt that M$M going all sexist on Clinton is going to win her votes - no question

And if you don't think there are PLENTY of black folks who will vote for Obama simply because he is black then your kidding yourself - and there are plenty of people who will vote against Clinton because she is a woman and against Obama because he is black - personally neither race or gender is the most important issue for me - BUT I can tell you as a woman who has waited my whole life for a woman President - if I determined that all three candidates were equal there is NO DOUBT in my mind gender would decide it for me.

Apparently the iron my shirt bull shit was VERY BIG news in NH and there are some who feel this did indeed get women out to vote for her.....

Stand back and ask yourself how we (Dems/progressives/liberals) all (of all genders) feel (emotionally--jeez just look at the posts around here) when the MSM ignores/distorts the actual facts of any situation.

Kucinich has been patronized and ignored by the MSM in their reporting and in the debates. Have you checked the blood pressure of his defenders here at DU lately?

Why should we women NOT react to the blatant sexism against Hillary? The women of New Hampshire gave Hillary a narrow (really, really narrow) win over Obama, who had a commanding lead in Iowa. I'm beginning to think they were right to do so.

Hekate

Edwards-Obama 2008

human psychology and marketing for decades if not close to a century all for the purpose of selling products, the corporate media knows that better than anyone.

Another reason to never vote for Hillary.
Thanks!

Maybe Obama supporters should start posting rape threats. I'm sure that would be just as acceptable. :eyes:

:eyes: MKJ

It mostly started because I saw a bunch of reaching, hyperbole, half-truths and some down-right lies, so I would correct people or defend her. The more I defended her and her record the more solidarity I felt with her. And that includes her being a woman.

Now, I wasn't a bra burner, but I was active in the "women's lib" movement in college ( 67-71) In fact my last bit of standing my ground was at my bank in 1976. The fact that she is female means a lot to me. Just as the black community may be more inclined to vote for Obama for his race, I'm more inclined to vote for Clinton because of her gender.

I make no apologies.

Also, as I was reading her biography and her website, her ideas are really good ones.
I also believe she will win in the general election. She will win over a lot of people IMO.

( I'll support any Democrat. I'm a partisan and a yellow-dog Dem... I make no apologies for that either!)

I used to support Dennis, but now I kind of support Hillary, I have found out that she is not so bad.

:toast: :bounce: :dunce: :grouphug: :patriot:

gender was never an issue with me - before this story. And no, it wasn't Tweety - as I expect this from him. it was people here - from whom I expected better. it was the guy selling newspapers NH election day - 3 tabloids with the same ugly photo of her and nasty headlines (for days now). I looked at them and said "disgusting" "Don't buy it if you don't like it" was the answer, it was not the words, but the tone - very angry and agresive - which made me feel this was as personal to him as it was to me.
From this point on, this was far passed the MSM.
And then the surrogates for that other candidate - whom I like - started "analyzing those tears"... I am still simmering...

and he would still be my first choice. So in that waiting time I started defending Clinton and her supporters on other websites and blogs. The sexism, hyperbole and outright lies about who she is and her record were just idiotic in my view. Her supporters were treated like interlopers who didn't belong on the "liberal" blogs.
When Obama and Edwards themselves were double teaming her at debates, when they started playing up the same ridiculous attacks on her as I was reading on the blogs, that was it I was going to support her. She's the best candidate based on the issues and experience so I feel no guilt about cheering for the idea of the first female president. I think it's about time and an important step for the whole nation. It will be an inspiration for woman all over the world. And that ain't just gravy.

Hillary Clinton may not be the angry populist in the race but that guy has way overplayed his hand and run a attack campaign against her. She may not be the best orator, but it takes more than making a good speech to be president. What she is is the smartest, most experienced, hardest working, most fully vetted, best policy wonk (I love that in a candidate) we have running and she doesn't deserve the treatment she is getting. That the other campaigns decided to pile on too and take advantage of the frat boy behavior of the TV Pundits only turns me off to them even more.

This recent race baiting by Obama surrogates also makes me very angry. They would rather tear the democratic party apart than lose and that is not okay with me.

The fact that she is a woman discounts the fact that she is pro-war, pro-outsourcing, anti-worker and pro-torture?
Don't complain then when she sends your kids to Iran.

And I'm getting soooo sick of the "women voted for Hillary because she cried" meme.

Over-riding the thought process is sometimes the goal in every election.

It works real good, too.

I consider my candidate, John Edwards, and his "son of a mill-worker" bit to have a whiff of manipulation to it. For some people that will be what will decide it for them.

It's biography, but it's put to use, as it were. It's what happens in campaigns.

In your view, does your candidate ever manipulate emotions?

As for Hillary - everything she says or does is called a manipulation here. The radio station prank guys - even after the source was published - it was called a set-up here.
The "tearing up" was called a set up - until it was revealed that the questioner voted Obama - a few apologized, most still don't.
So, I am not really looking for this angle - I leave this pleasure to you guys.
I will tell you that much - my anger has nothing to do with what Hillary said or didn't - but with all the cameras trained on her face after Iowa in search of the "scream' - and the ensuing "moment" "anger" "tears" - that were all on page one on all the tabloids in my city.
So, I am satisfied that I am not manipulated by the candidate that - possibly- will get my vote.

The press tried to play up the "crying" incident to get women pissed off and make Hillary the winner. Then when she has the nom, the press will be running the meme 24/7 that "if you don't vote republican then you'll have president Hillary" thus energizing the Republican vote like no other and causing Hillary's defeat in the General election.
They played you like a fiddle.
Lee Atwater would've been proud.

I suppose Obama's campaign wants Hillary to win too - when it analyzes the tears. It's one big conspiracy. Against your penis

When this incident first happened ,Hillary haters were doing happy jigs,so sure it was her "Dean Scream" moment,the nail in the coffin,of course that was when they thought she was going to lose.She wins New Hampshire and all of a sudden it was all a big conspiracy to win her the election. Some of the stuff on this board is so facile and juvenile,it defies any logical explanation.

just to spite him and the millions of poorly evolved men who are so freakin' threatened by the possibility of a woman president.

For those of us who have had a lifetime of dealing with the good old boys' condescending, contemptuous attitudes toward the "little woman", it is a powerful temptation.

:kick:

MKJ

No wonder the younger generation of women are so puzzled about what's going on in the heads of their mothers and grandmothers who actually fall for this.

Is vengeance that closely held to the heart?

Is that what a Hillary Clinton presidency represents? Not policies but castration?

That is negative to the extreme.

Not only that, but the fact that it's used when the opposition is an African-American. African-American men have *never* been in a position of power over the entire United States........................ except in racists' scare tactics trying to produce fear of the Big Black C*ck and miscegenation.

Why would women, white women, need to destroy man? the black man?

That's the twofer for the ages.

This is all suspect.

OK then. MKJ

edit. wow. just wow.

Perhaps I read you, and your intent, wrong.

But that's how I read 'payback' -- when the victim of that payback is a man and the instrument of that payback is a woman, using a vote as payback is a form of castration.

What would you call it, however? besides payback.

Something which hot, sexy, progressive men find sizzling hot. :-)

MKJ

But to each, everyone's own. There are also men who prefer women who are doormats. And men and women who prefer being those doormats.

Works for the racial as well.

I am only empowered when race and gender become secondary. Obama sought to make those things secondary. He is a candidate who happens to be.....

Hillary seeks to make them capital-I important.... it's like using spice to cover the taste of rotting meat served to one's customers. The meat is still bad.

A man who supports voting for a candidate on the basis of superficials like gender or race is not a progressive. Such 'support' actually makes the status quo stronger, not lesser, a case of 'exceptions proving the rule', in my opinion.

The man who supports such voting is actually securing his place at the top of the pantheon, through a pretense of sacrifice. He is saying 'that candidate has no business being in the race, but I will toss a bone anyway because I have the power to toss bones'. He still holds the power to take those bones away even as he has the power to endow those bones.

He owns the bones. That's the point. And that's why it's being a doormat. It's not real. It's not a real doormat. It's the status quo. But it's not equal. It's not respect.

You have apparently not had the pleasure of the company of a smart, confident, strong, progressive man. Sorry for you.

But, they are the best precisely because they don't need to dominate, they're just confident in themselves. MMMM. :loveya: MKJ

I am sure you didn't mind my castrating fantasies then - or did ya?

after 1 state. it was ridiculous. and i think people in NH didn't like that.

I was used to what they did in 2004 - when they crowned Kerry in his living room - before the first vote was cast. So, Obama in Iowa was - to me a happy surprise. I am still happy about the new voters he brings in.

Edwards finest moment during the New Hampshire debate was showing emotion when he claimed that his courage to fight corporate corruption was based on it being personal as his parents or grandparents came from humble origins working in the mill. The corporate media ignored that, I believe that was because they knew it was his finest moment as well. In stead they put out the meme that he and Obama had ganged up on Hillary Clinton, basically because Edwards accused her of being part of the status quo fighting against change. A few days later after she exhibits emotion claiming her not wanting the country to go back was personal, they synchronized their coverage and broadcast it simultaneously leading off the news on every network a day or two before the election. I believe the Neanderthals in the corporate media berated her for it because they knew women out number men voting in the Democratic Primary and then they play stupid as to why she won New Hampshire against all their predictions. I believe the corporate media is still trying to manipulate the American People on behalf of corporate interests.

:shrug:

Edwards is speaking out against corporate corruption more than other Democratic Candidate with the possible exception of Kucinich. The corporate media make their big bucks from those very same corporations or are part of them. The corporate media control the vast majority of information released to the American People in order for them to make their judgments as to the critically important position of President, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where their loyalties ly.

To some degree they did the same thing to Al Gore claiming he had become too populist while they enabled Bush to power. In fact when Al Gore gave a more populist message his poll ratings went up. The corporate media are manipulating the American People, all for their own agenda, that's what this is about.

that would be Edwards. Edwards came in second in Iowa and was virtually ignored, I believe because of his stance to fight against corporate corruption and look out for the average American.

My first choice would've been Al Gore because of what he did in empowering the people by championing opening up the Internet for the people, only to be slandered and libeled by the corporate media and his warnings against Global Warming, not to mention his general vision and intellect. I like Kucinich as well, because I believe the "War Against Drugs" is a colossal tragedy. I really don't know enough about Gravel, because the corporate media ignored or wrote him off early.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSoCHfyYCew
At the very least, it loses him the standing to complain.

and if he did that, he was wrong, but it's the American People being screwed over and shortchanged when the corporate media manipulate the people, not the candidate. That's not poetic justice on either count, it's a betrayal against the people's interest, all in favor of their corporate God.

P.S. For the record, this computer doesn't have sound, so I can't tell the context or circumstances of youtube with out a transcript.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

At this point I really must agree with you -- and the women of New Hampshire.

Hekate

Edwards-Obama 2008

My wife was very angry. (I think she likes Obama best still though)

I thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Still do.

But anyway, about that third smiley: If you're now supporting Hillary (not that I'm making that assumption), guess you'd better hope the violinists keep it up!

:toast:

I don't want to vote based on this. I don't blame Obama for any of it, I like him.
I am still closest on the issues to Gravel, Kucinich. So believe me when I say:
I TRULY WANT THEM TO STOP!
(same as the racist accusations on the other side)

Face it, she doesn't give a shit about you or me or anybody elsse that doesn't make more then $10 million a year.
She just another limousine liberal.
Remember Bill and his "I feel your pain"? Well, she doesn't feel your pain and couldn't care less.
She will never get my vote. End of Story. When she sends your kids to fight and die in Iran, just remember that you let her do it.

and are reduced to using tears/choking up to gain votes.

Sorry. I like a little more strength than Prom Princess/Daddy's Little Girl manipulative bullsh*t. She is not a petulant 8 year old. She is a grown woman, and should be beyond those tactics.

Apparently, she is not.

Crying over who does your hair.
Please.

Next.

MKJ

Analyze those tears dear....
I was not asking people to vote for her - but rather to stop already with the tears BS.

and yes, female solidarity is huge for Hillary Clinton so you nailed it there too.

It's too bad she is sinking to dirty politics though just to win.

"Did the tears affect you?" - in the Daily News - I recall a pie chart with a large majority of "no". Which, obviously would be my answer too. I doubt that in a survey there's a "no, but..."column. So that, with the whole "could she lose her own state? Pretty please?" (Obama on page one). So, I am a bit closer to voting for her now.
Voting for her would't be so different than my GE vote of 2004. I voted a pro-war ticket then because it was a vote against Bush. (I explained my kid who was in the booth with me - the difference between a vote "for" -Clark in primaries- and a vote "against" - GE.) This would be a vote against "them" (those who installed, propped Bush & also hate and despise women).

Found the pie chart - notice the "tears humanized her" BS - was she a Klingon or a Vulcan before?

I want to support a Democrat for what they stand for.

I'm not against tears. I'm not against emotion, but that emotion has to serve some purpose other than to outrage us against the GOP. I'm outraged enough about the media and the GOP, I don't need Hillary to catalyze that outrage and the fact that she would presume to be a rallying point for that outrage only diminishes what that outrage means.

My outrage, my emotion, my tears and my struggle are bigger than Hillary Clinton. They are bigger than me, because they are not about me. They are about where this country is headed and why.

It is true that the media is unfair to Hillary. I understand that when Hillary voted for the IWR she didn't vote to go to war, she voted to give Bush the "authority" to go to war. That is a distinction that the media refuses to make, but she was still wrong to vote that way.

I understand that when Hillary voted for Kyle-Leiberman she was not voting for war, she was voting for a "stick" with which to prod Iran against further nuclear activity, but that doesn't mean that her reasoning was correct.

I understand that when Hillary Clinton endorsed Joe Leiberman for the Democratic primary in Conneticut she was doing so to avoid division within the Democratic party, but that didn't make it right.

I understand that when Hillary teared up about the way she, as a woman, is treated by the media. Her every misstep is magnified and even her most irrelevant actions become op-ed fodder, but the media's glare doesn't serve to make her missteps true. The medias unfairness doesn't make her reasoning more sound.

The medias flaws don't serve to make her less flawed.

So while the media may outrage me, a candidate has to be more than a whipping post for the media. THey need to be a catalyst for change, and in my mind Hillary is not that catalyst. She absorbs that outrage without channeling it into anything meaningful.

We need a better vessel for our outrage. We need a better conduit for change.