Gender Politics

[Natasha]

Gender Politics

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/david_sarasohn/index.ssf?/base/editorial/120069690379550.xml&coll=7
by David Sarasohn
01/20/2008

"There is something about gender identity politics that is going on in this election."

[Keira]

I agree Hillary Clinton is given no applaud when she wins or does good,
its all about women voters, the tear, the whatever.
Most of the media have been overtly chauvinistic. Sadly, it seems
chauvinistic attitudes are more prevalent than racism!!! Or at least,
more usually benign (though this is now arguable seeing how
rabid some men are!) and more shocking when it becomes
virulent. The fact that Obama had men's vote
more than women where going to Hillary was a clincher. Nobody
mentionned it anywhere... Wonder Why.

Hillary is not the perfect candidate (though I think Obama's full of hot air)
but she's the best thing the democrats have.

[tekla]

HC is part and parcel of the same crime family that has been running this nation into the ground for a few decades now.  She is not better than her husband, and possibly worse than GW, as she is at least competent.  Sorry, I want someone who has some experience in like, oh, well, running something other than a campaign.  Trouble is, she gets much more respect than she deserves.

[Keira]

Yeah, and how is Obama better? Might as well, put the padlock on the door and
close shop on the elections since anybody involved in US politics is a shill for
someone because it costs 1 billion to get elected!!!!

The problem is the whole system, not any particular candidate.
Anyone who enters this system needs to prostitute themselves and that's sad.

But, being a realist, I'm looking at the here and now and I don't see Obama's
empty sentence with nothing to back him up as better than Hillary Clinton.
He wants MLK's heritage when he doesn't even come to MLK's bootstraps. and
Hillary Clinton has her own issue, but
you way over the top rhetoric is not it. And with rhetoric like that, I
sense it would be useless to argue the subject with you.

BTW, you went way off tangent and did not address the point I wanted to
make. Geraldine Ferrero was also ridicule 20 years ago. No matter
which women would have been there, some people in the media
would be ultra-misogynistic with little consequences.

Cris Mathews acts would have led to a dimissal if he'd talked about black
or any other group of people in the same tone.

[tekla]

No, many of us are concerned that an ONGOING CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE HAS BEEN LOOTING THIS NATION FOR A FEW DECADES NOW.  She is a part of is.  I said nothing about Obama.  I said she is no better then her jerkwad husband, and possibly worse than GW.  That is not exactly an outstanding endorsement. 

That the rich have got a lot richer, the poor a lot poorer, ever since the 1980s is not a matter for debate here.  Its just true.  That we are involved in a never ending war, that she voted for, and still supports - despite the fact that 64% of our population wants us out, well, that is not a minor deal either.

And Canada, isn't that the nation that just took the US and Israel off the list of nations that torture and abuse prisoners.  Gee, we even admit it.  At least the US has its own citizens buying off its government.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1200572493263

[Keira]

Tekla, you cannot argue the point can you?

That's Canada's MINORITY government that did that.
And he'll get his in the next election. That's how democracy works.

As for the rich getting richer, that's been the case almost always.
Its just in sputters where that has not been the case and
its the case worldwide even in countries with high taxation rates.
The issue is not the rich getting richer, but the rich getting
richer at the poor's expense; while the poor's real wage is regressing.
That's what the Bush era has been continuously.

It takes money to make money. So, regardless of policy, those
with more money will be able to make more.

Unless the state takes all the money (like in Communism)
and then you have to hope they're not
corrupt and don't put their hands in the till. With no money,
nobody has an incentive to do anything since you can never
get richer; everybody's poor in the exact same way (there
is not even a middle class).

I've got plenty of Russian
friends (my best friend comes from Kaliningrad) and believe me,
it wasn't the good life pre 1990. Now, russia's finally growing
and although there's still mucho poor, there's a lot less than
2003 and 1990. Putin's a dictator but there was never
a democracy in Russia anyway.

[tekla]

It has not always been the case here, quite the reverse.