Is there a law regarding absentee ballots for those that died after filling them out but before the primary/election? I suppose this might happen quite a bit.

What would the lesbian do if the Republican candidate was a woman? How openly sexist is she? Does she not realize that any man who said, "well I had to go with the man" would be chastised and labeled (correctly so)?

Let the rationalizations for hypocritical female behavior begin.

I've often made this point with regard to racism, but it applies to sexism as well.

There is a difference between a decision that is based in part (or whole) on sex, and a decision that is sexist. The latter is a subset of the former. In particular, sexism implies that one believes one sex is inferior in some way, and should be kept in its place or limited to traditional roles.

It's pretty difficult to imagine why a man would vote for another man on the basis of sex without it being sexist. There really isn't another plausible reason. A woman might very well vote for another woman out of a desire for equality, however. This would be a sex-based decision, but it would not imply any sort of belief that men are inferior or limited, and therefore would not be sexist.

"This would be a sex-based decision, but it would not imply any sort of belief that men are inferior or limited, and therefore would not be sexist."

Maroci:

I don't agree with your rationalization at all. The quoted portion above, in particular, looks at the situation with eyes that only see women as innocents. Many women think men (and yes, they generalize it to all) are too violent or poorly evolved. How many times do we hear, "well if women ran the country...". This kind of crap most certainly implies that men are inferior.

Your argument is flat wrong.

kuru, theres one....next.

I would agree OIC, but I have a sneaking suspicion maroci might be a man and just itching to do the Scooby Doo reveal.

It actually doesn't matter what gender the hypocrits are; plenty of men have bought into the B.S.

kuruman,

Would it be okay if I said I have a sneaking suspicion, based on your posts, that you're gay and just itching to do the Scooby Doo reveal?

Would that be an okay thing for me to say? That you're gay? What would you have done if the only man for you to vote for was a Republican? You would have been in quite the predicament, now wouldn't you?

Well I guess not, since you're English. You must have had a really hard time with Margaret Thatcher, and maybe John Major given that he is so unbone-able. Tony Blair was quite the English crumpet though, wasn't he?

Gordon Brown is so blech though...no wonder you're so obsessed with American politics. Obama is quite the cutey, isn't he?

I don't particularly have a hard time with a woman supporting a candidate because the candidate is a woman (I'm not terribly impressed by it, though :).

But I do disagree when those same supporters claim:

• It's JUSTICE that their candidate be supported.
• Those who DON'T support that candidate are against women.
• Their position is RATIONAL.

StevieN,

No one really cares about impressing you. HRC is the better candidate, regardless of her gender. Maybe this is why the opposition found it so necessary to phrase their attacks in gendered-language, because they're certainly not going to get anywhere attacking her on her domestic policies or her moderate FP stances.

And no, those who don't support HRC are not against women, unless those who don't support HRC are against women. The tenor of many the attacks on her, on the Fray and in the media, suggest that misogyny does have something to do with it. I used to support HRC because she was the best candidate in my book, now I support her because I do feel like justice is an issue here. I do feel like many of those who don't support her are against women (either directly or tacitly through their silence).

And their position *is* rational: she is the best candidate. Many HRC supporters, and others as well, find the support of Obama to be irrational--based on cult of personality and meaningless rhetoric. So I guess "rational" is subjective, isn't it?

mercadia:

kuruman, Would it be okay if I said I have a sneaking suspicion, based on your posts, that you're gay and just itching to do the Scooby Doo reveal? Would that be an okay thing for me to say? That you're gay? What would you have done if the only man for you to vote for was a Republican? You would have been in quite the predicament, now wouldn't you? Well I guess not, since you're English. You must have had a really hard time with Margaret Thatcher, and maybe John Major given that he is so unbone-able. Tony Blair was quite the English crumpet though, wasn't he? Gordon Brown is so blech though...no wonder you're so obsessed with American politics. Obama is quite the cutey, isn't he?

What a turd of a post. Probably only Dane Cook fans would find it amusing.

Gordon brown has a sexy deep voice. I'm not impressed with Obama's looks at all.

she is the best candidate in your opinion, others disagree...i cannot in good faith vote for any of the 3, they do not represent what is best for my country...in my opinion...

mercadia:

StevieN, No one really cares about impressing you. HRC is the better candidate, regardless of her gender. Maybe this is why the opposition found it so necessary to phrase their attacks in gendered-language, because they're certainly not going to get anywhere attacking her on her domestic policies or her moderate FP stances. And no, those who don't support HRC are not against women, unless those who don't support HRC are against women. The tenor of many the attacks on her, on the Fray and in the media, suggest that misogyny does have something to do with it. I used to support HRC because she was the best candidate in my book, now I support her because I do feel like justice is an issue here. I do feel like many of those who don't support her are against women (either directly or tacitly through their silence). And their position *is* rational: she is the best candidate. Many HRC supporters, and others as well, find the support of Obama to be irrational--based on cult of personality and meaningless rhetoric. So I guess "rational" is subjective, isn't it?

even worse (or worser at Bush might say).

Do you have specific examples of the "tenor" that suggests misogyny? Give me one example.

The majority of Democrats appear to disagree with your absolute proclamation of HRC's superiority. It is your approach that is irrational. The truth is there is not much between them in terms of policy OR experience, and thus it comes down to things like personality and baggage. HRC, in my opinion, loses on both counts.

I don't think we won the lottery with either of these candidates.

kuruman,

What a turd of a post? Amazing, given that it mimics yours.

But, it's good to know you're not shallow in what you find sexually attractive. If you're not impressed with Obama, the young, virile, sexy Senator from Illinois, well...to each his own I guess. You still have Brown's sexy voice to wank to.

kuruman,

Specific examples, wow. Of course I do! Look at your posts! Look at the Fray! It's absolutely insane.

But if you want other, specific examples from the press, I googled to see if I could find someone else who already made a similar argument, and I got this, which outlines my experience pretty clearly:

<link>

For a general synopsis of my personal experience (not only with strangers but with friends who are Obama supporters), this salon.com article sums it up nicely: <link>

And, the majority of Democrats agree with me on Clinton. Have you been following the election? The majority of Democrats *agree* with me. Clinton wins among women, blue-collar workers, people who live in rural areas, and registered Democrats (last I checked, but that was in March, and I'm not sure if NC changed that statistic). In Texas, larger percentages of voters voted Clinton on the issues than voted for her in the primary. She might not have won the most votes, but she won the most general support based on the issues.

mercadia:

StevieN, No one really cares about impressing you. HRC is the better candidate, regardless of her gender. Maybe this is why the opposition found it so necessary to phrase their attacks in gendered-language, because they're certainly not going to get anywhere attacking her on her domestic policies or her moderate FP stances. And no, those who don't support HRC are not against women, unless those who don't support HRC are against women. The tenor of many the attacks on her, on the Fray and in the media, suggest that misogyny does have something to do with it. I used to support HRC because she was the best candidate in my book, now I support her because I do feel like justice is an issue here. I do feel like many of those who don't support her are against women (either directly or tacitly through their silence). And their position *is* rational: she is the best candidate. Many HRC supporters, and others as well, find the support of Obama to be irrational--based on cult of personality and meaningless rhetoric. So I guess "rational" is subjective, isn't it?

I have to tell you, princess. that you are indulging in HYSTERICS (hehehe). Even disregarding the schoolgirl stuff such as "nobody cares about impressing you," your post is an hysterical and irrational rant.

Well, that craziness has been on increasing display on the forum in inverse correlation to Hillary's campaign success. Which itself only demonstrates (no surprise) that at least SOME of Hillary's support has been of the intensely irrational kind (as I'm sure some of Obama's support is).

That's no great news. The only interesting thing here is the inevitable comic effect you create when you insist your rants are clear and rational arguments--and that everybody who disagrees is irrational :)