I'm not sure we know how to "loose" gracefully.

Or how to "spell" correctly.

As much as I hate Shrillary, I do feel a teeny bit sorry for her. But not a lot. She knew the job was dangerous when she took it; if she was being realistic, she would have known she had a snowball's chance in hell of winning this thing. She needs to suck it up and bow out gracefully, or lose all credibility she ever had. YMMV

Ever notice the large majority of her supporters never seem to know she popsitions on issues?

All I ever hear is 'we need a woman in the white house'

My question to magic pussy people is a simple one

We have had female politician at every level of government for decades now. If they truley are so superior why are there still so few in office?

"Ever notice the large majority of her supporters never seem to know she popsitions on issues?"

I find that with a lot of people. A former friend of mine would support someone simply based on the fact that he/she is pro-choice. While abortion is an important issue I think there are a lot of other pressing issues to be informed about and consider when choosing who to support. Just seemed like a too-rash decision that lacked actual thought. My dad does this. A lot of people do it. Hillary supporters are not unique in this way. Unfortunately.

Flynne, she never had a moment's credibility. She's been as transparent as acetate from the day she burst on the national political scene.

To answer Lujlp's question (at the risk of offending many, like I care) - it's because women as a class are NOT superior, and the types of women that seem to be attracted to power and fame are farther below median competence than are the same men.

Did that sound right? Lemme try again, this time with math.

Let P be a politician (Pf, Pm). Let M be the median competency to function in life (Mf, Mm).

(Mf - Pf) > (Mm - Pm).

In other words, Male politicians (as a group) are less competent at everyday life than the median mail. Female politicians are less competent still.

Furthermore, I posit that even if the median woman is superior to the median man (an assertion I am not making here), female politicians are, on balance, actually worse than male ones.

Flynne, she never had a moment's credibility. She's been as transparent as acetate from the day she burst on the national political scene.

Touche, Brian, but I was just trying to be nice. Not that she deserves it, she's about as phony as a 3-dollar bill.

...female politicians are, on balance, actually worse than male ones.

So, in all honesty, you don't think Rosa DeLauro has done our state any good at all?

>> I'm 36...

Now I feel just like I did the first time I saw a playboy playmate was born AFTER I graduated college.

So, in all honesty, you don't think Rosa DeLauro has done our state any good at all?

I think she's one of the dumbest people to have ever walked the halls of power. She's a power-drunk class warrior to boot. We all knew that Rowland was crooked, but the only reason she pushed to oust him is because he kept killing her precious "millionaire surcharge". She's probably biding her time until Rell leaves, or hoping that Rell will come around, given that she's drank so much of the other leftist kool-aid that's flowing in this state.

I know very little about her (and most of it bad), but comparatively speaking, Ella Grasso might have been the best governor this state had in my lifetime. Rell's not horrible either, given what she has to work with, but I'd appreciate a little more push-back against the liberals.

'K, I concede the points you made. I liked Ella, too, she did a lot for this state, and then Weicker (sp?) came along and shit all over us. *sigh*

Reportedly, when Hillary was told older white males did not support her, she replied, "I know. I remind them of their first wives."

According to Wikipedia (that paragon of information accuracy), Ellen Malcolm graduated from Hollins College in 1969. That puts her in her mid-to-late 50s. I wonder how many other Hillary supporters who are screaming "sexism" at her detractors are in that bitter dumped-first-wife age demographic.

In other words, Male politicians (as a group) are less competent at everyday life than the median mail. Female politicians are less competent still.

I'm not sure I agree with you that male politicians are less competent than a random post card; but I don't think you can generalize that a woman politicians is, by default, even less competent.

When I left college, diploma tightly clutched in hand, and entered corporate American, I was bombarded with that "women make better managers because they're more open and nuturing" pabulum. My first female manager was anything but open and nurturing. She was sexist, cliquish, and immature; and had filing a sexual harassment lawsuit been an option for me, I'd be spending lazy afternoons on a white sandy beach drinking rum instead of working for a living.

In time, I discovered that, as a group, women are no better and no worse at management than men; and that a person's managerial competence has nothing to do with their gender. I've worked for some great women managers and I've worked for some real doozies. Same with the men managers for whom I've worked.

Having said that, I do agree that too many of our current female politicians come from the "we're victims" social engineering school of political thought.

Conan - what I'm saying isn't that women are necessarily worse than men at being politicians.

I'm saying that if (numbers pulled from dark moist place) the average male politician is 10% less competent at life than the average male, then the average female politician is 15% less competent at life than the average female.

Given the nature of statistics and outliers, it doesn't say anything terribly enlightened about specific cases. I mean, not all female politicians are as dumb as Sheila Jackson Lee, or as incompetent as Nancy Pelosi.

Its good to see that I'm not the only one sick of every peron that doesn't support Hillary or wants her drop out being labeled sexist. Maybe, just maybe, some of the people that don't support Clinton have a list of reasons that does not include gender. And maybe, just maybe, the some of the people that want her to drop out are citing the fact the Obama has the numerical lead and they are worried that this long drug out race will create dissension in the party. Right now the Democratic party is far from united an Obama or Clinton would have a serious uphill battle against McCain (who has had several months to sit back and watch the fight).

Now I'm not naive enough to think that none of those people have sexist motivations but I'm not naive enough to believe that all of them have sexist motivations either.

And I have to wonder how quick would they be to cry racism if the numbers and calls to drop out were reversed. I know I wouldn't.

"how quick would they be to cry racism if the numbers and calls to drop out were reversed"

yeah, this 'ould be my feeling, too... when you make the campaign about identity politics, you will always get to this point.

All a white guy can say is "Drat! I lost."

I'm an outsider on your election but am likely following it closer than most Americans. I'm DEEPLY disturbed by the identity politics surfacing amongst many Americans liberals.

When on earth did it become acceptable to accuse someone of sexism or racism if you didn't vote for so & so? Yet this seems par for the course on a daily basis since the beginning of 2008. And the media feeds on it. Their constant emphasis on dividing voters up by demographic exit polls is beyond disgusting to me.

The greatest irony of all has to be how many liberals are insisting upon being called "progressives". Is it progressive (read "forward thinking") to divide people up by their racial heritage and their genitalia? I think not.

Robert - it's a very simple principle. If you can turn the people against each other, they will never be strong enough to oppose the government.

So by forcing people to take sides by race, gender, penis preference, etc., they create a whole slew of splinter groups that will not support each other, but will all support THEM.

You'll note that neither blacks nor hispanics are terribly fond of homosexuals, yet all three groups vote overwhelmingly Democratic.

In simpler terms, literally every name that the Democrats assign to themselves is a lie.

(posted to wrong thread earlier: sorry)

Obama's victory is by no means a lock: See the Kausfiles post from 1:30am today. Hillary could easily become the next president of the United States... And she might not be a much worse president that McCain or Obama.

I'll always vote against that woman, because I have blood pressure issues, and also because it's matter of human dignity.

Posted by: Crid at May 21, 2008 11:34 AM

Whatever one thinks of HRC, she has every right to stay in the race through the Democrat convention. Obama has the lead in delegates but does not have enough to win the nomination on the first ballot. After that everything could change as delegates are only pledged for the first ballot. So, until one of the candidates has the magic number of 2026 delegates they have no right to ask another candidate to drop out. If after 5 or 6 innings in a baseball game one team is ahead by x number of runs we don't ask the other team to drop out because it looks like they are going to lose.

To call asking Hillary to pack up and go is hardly sexist; it's more like: "Can't you read the wall-writing?" However, if Hillary wants to stay until Osama Malcom X Obama sings, that's her business.

I also find it strange that HRC'S camp would wait til' now to flip the sexist card as now would have been a better time to flip her early-in-the-race cry-baby card. Hillary's good when the deck is stacked, but when she has to play smart she trusts the wrong people.

D.W.

The fear of being political incorrect has seeped into some comments on here. I fully understand why, though am saddened anytime anyone feels the need to first preface any comments they think might be controversial. I did it myself constantly in my 20's and even now (I'm 43) need to check myself anytime I start walking down that path again.

This reminded of Godwin's Law, something I first learned of from a female friend of mine from Philadelphia. Her take on it is that anytime someone calls another person a "Nazi" in a heated Internet discussion that the person using the phrase automatically and immediately loses the argument.

I think this needs to be expanded for anyone who labels another as a "Racist" or "Sexist". For if one can't disagree or even detest someone who happens to be another race or sex than them, then we are truly at a sad state in history.

P.S. I'm doubly amused when some people have called me a racist sexist white male simply because I disagree with them on a political issue. To each of these folks I always ask them the same simple question: "If Condoleezza Rice were running in this election as the Republican Presidential Candidate, would you vote for her?" Their response is always the same: Absolute silence at first and then a long, twisted diatribe about why that's "different". It also often ends in them calling her a Nazi. :-(

Organized sports? Hillary went to an all-women's college, where she could have signed up for field hockey any day of the week.

No, she's just petty. She made a deal with Bill and the Democratic party but forgot to inform the voters.

>until Osama Malcom X Obama sings

WTF does that mean?

I agree with Jay. She not only has the right to stay in, she has a substantial chance winning. I'll kick a puppy in the face if she does, but let's not pretend she's a reckless long shot.

I remember watching the '68 conventions on TV like they were the most exciting thing in the world. Ever since then the conventions have been so heavily managed that no appearance of reality was every permitted to intrude.

But Americans have real differences demanding consideration, so this is going to be a bad summer for Howard Dean. Which is OK by me.

I hate Hillary and do think she ought to have the class to step aside by now. And it has nothing to do with her being a woman. I resent the hell out of the assumption that if you don't like Hillary it must be because she's a woman.

But, beyond my personal dislike of her, I think her even running for President, given that she was already in the White House, brings up another issue no one's even talking about now that we've reached a day and age where a woman can viably run for President -- how does this affect the two-term limit?

Somehow it seems wrong to me that someone could be Prez for 8 years and then have the possiblity that their spouse (all of those 8 years and having influence on what they did as president) can turn around and run, so that together, the two of them get possibly 16 years of power instead of 8?

I know there's no law forbidding it. But surely that's because the term limits were put in place when it didn't occur to anyone the First Lady might later become President. Shouldn't something be introduced enacting that? I'd write my elected official but I'm in NY so guess who that is? Maybe I should write a Repubican in another state...