.

[themysteriousgrowl]

 

Do you know why they call royalty bluebloods?
Well, I do
They call royalty bluebloods
Because their skin was so thin
That their veins showed through...blue
There, that's something I've taught you
No need to thank me

[jb19662]

It was rhetorical.  It's already been established you aren't very bright and don't have any original thoughts. 

 

 

[newintown]

There's really no one better on the board than the growl.

[themysteriousgrowl]

 

D’aww, thanks, newintown. But context is king, and at this moment, I think there’s no one better on the board than Carlos.

[jb19662]

This board is a lot more exciting than All That Chat!

[Kad]

Back to the matter at hand...

 

[South Florida]

Hey jb19662 you seem to know quite a bit about Carlos, please let us know all you've learned on these boards in just under 3 months  As for the rest of you, it sucks when half the country feels the same about her as Carlos does, so please allow us all to wallow in our ignorance, you are all obviously smarter than us. And Growl is my favorite poster too.

 

 

[jb19662]

Huh? Pretty sure I learned everything from this thread. 

[South Florida]

All you need to know about someone in order to start your name calling is what you've read here?  A**hole!

[Kad]

Lay off the sauce, South Florida.

[Steve C.]

If you ever stay at a Trump hotel, don't pay the bill and tell them you weren't satisfied. Personally, I would never stay there, but it would be interesting if someone tried it. I would be video recording the results.

 

(I'm trying Kad, to be back on topic)

[South Florida]

Whatever Kad, I like your posts too, but Growlie is just better.

 

[HorseTears]

BOOM!

 

[PalJoey]

 

Dear Carlos--

 

Please read.

 

http://aplus.com/a/grain-of-saul-support-hillary-clinton

 

[newintown]

I just love this sentence in that piece Joey links above:

"Let's start with a simple but important position: Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for president."

It can't be said enough. And do you know why? Because many self-professed Clinton Haters, when presented with evidence that their objections are based on myth, still choose to hate her. Which means, of course, that the hate doesn't stem from a sober examination of facts, but from an unexamined emotional response. And the most obvious cause of that would have to be a misogyny so deeply ingrained (even among women) that it can't be recognized.

[PalJoey]

Well put, newintown.

[Liza's Headband]

newintown said: "I just love this sentence in that piece Joey links above:

"Let's start with a simple but important position: Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for president."

It can't be said enough. And do you know why? Because many self-professed Clinton Haters, when presented with evidence that their objections are based on myth, still choose to hate her. Which means, of course, that the hate doesn't stem from a sober examination of facts, but from an unexamined emotional response. And the most obvious cause of that would have to be a misogyny so deeply ingrained (even among women) that it can't be recognized.

 

"

 

I assume you are a woman yourself? 

[givesmevoice]

Liza's Headband said: "newintown said: "I just love this sentence in that piece Joey links above:

"Let's start with a simple but important position: Hillary Clinton is the most qualified person to ever run for president."

It can't be said enough. And do you know why? Because many self-professed Clinton Haters, when presented with evidence that their objections are based on myth, still choose to hate her. Which means, of course, that the hate doesn't stem from a sober examination of facts, but from an unexamined emotional response. And the most obvious cause of that would have to be a misogyny so deeply ingrained (even among women) that it can't be recognized."

 

I assume you are a woman yourself? "

 

I'm a woman and I agree with what newintown said. Misogyny has become deeply ingrained in women because it's become so normalized.

[Liza's Headband]

Great. I was specifically asking newintown, though. 

[henrikegerman]

I like Hillary.  A lot.  I also understand a lot of the criticism she receives.  What I find difficult to understand is the selective aggressiveness against her compared to other mainstream centrist Dem politicians.  Or others who have made mistakes (and who hasn't?).

There's a soft (at best) bigotry of high expectations problem.  Many, it seems, want her to be something she's not because she's a woman.  Obama suffered something like this as as "the black president," but no where near what Hillary has suffered.  It's grossly unfair.  it's gross in fact.  

There's certainly sexism.   But it's not always the typical kind of sexism - sometimes, including from women critical of Hillary, it's an expectation that because she is a woman, her failure to be a leftist's dream or to outshine everyone else or to be irreproachable becomes for her severest critics highly morally disappointing, even unforgivable.

[Liza's Headband]

Her long history with questionable ethics and corrupt dealings is unforgivable; not whether she has a penis or a vagina. For example, I feel that same way about many other career politicians who share an equally "shady" or tainted past -- Rangle, Weiner, Spitzer, Grimm, Nixon, Hastert, etc., etc. How is it sexist to comparing her on the same level as these men? 

[ray-andallthatjazz86]

I think part of the issue is that when we talk about "misogyny" or "sexism," people immediately assume that it can't possibly apply to them because they "love women." They love women in their lives, they love actresses, whatever, so they have a hard time imagining how their reactions to Hillary are filtered through misogynistic ideology. This happens all the time with race too, if you are a person of color you've heard it before, "I'm not racist, I have a black/Latino/Asian friend." But the fact of the matter is that our reactions to Hillary are deeply entrenched in our expectations and notions of what a woman is or should be. The whole "I just don't trust her" thing that gets thrown around constantly when she comes up is not evidently a sexist reaction, but it goes back to our expectations that women should be nurturing, affable, and kind, and when they are not, then they must somehow be evil or conniving or whatnot. It's an unconscious level of misogyny that's harder to point out than explicit forms of sexism because it has little to do with the immediate reaction of hating women that we associate with words like "sexist."

[newintown]

"Rangle [sic], Weiner, Spitzer, Grimm, Nixon, Hastert, etc., etc. How is it sexist to comparing her on the same level as these men?"

Perhaps because, unlike them, she has never been found guilty of anything?

[Liza's Headband]

Unless, of course, you simply have the same expectations of any public servant no matter their gender.... then your point would be invalid. 

[Liza's Headband]

newintown said: ""Rangle [sic], Weiner, Spitzer, Grimm, Nixon, Hastert, etc., etc. How is it sexist to comparing her on the same level as these men?"

Perhaps because, unlike them, she has never been found guilty of anything?"

 

Ah, so guilt by association isn't a real thing anymore? Cool! I'll remember that!  See: 2009 Boeing-Russia deal and 2010 VCS Mining-Haiti investigation for more

[givesmevoice]

ray-andallthatjazz86 said: "The whole "I just don't trust her" thing that gets thrown around constantly when she comes up is not evidently a sexist reaction, but it goes back to our expectations that women should be nurturing, affable, and kind, and when they are not, then they must somehow be evil or conniving or whatnot. It's an unconscious level of misogyny that's harder to point out than explicit forms of sexism because it has little to do with the immediate reaction of hating women that we associate with words like "sexist.""

This is an excellent point, because Ezra Klein just did a video where he discussed "the gap" between how Hillary is perceived as a public figure (cold, calculating, ambitious) and how she is described by people who have worked with her (warm, loyal, devoted). Even though I personally don't think she comes across as cold and calculating as a public figure, and think she has every right to be outwardly ambitious, it's obvious that she's not coming across as a warm and maternal figure to most people.

As a personal example, we have a new Vice-Chancellor at the University I work for (in a New York-based office), who happens to be the first woman to be named Vice-Chancellor of this particular school. She is SUPER brilliant and quite lovely, but she is nowhere near as gregarious as her predecessor. I just said to a coworker that I don't think she (the new Vice-Chancellor) could ever be as outgoing as her predecessor, because she wouldn't be taken seriously as a leader if she was a woman who was that overly demonstrative.