Why will she not show her feet?

Is this like the Certificate of Live Birth issue with Obama???!!!111!!

What if Jeb Bush shows his feet? I can live the whole entire rest of my life without seeing his feet. Can't you? This may be something we agree on, lol.

Who are filthy rich and out of touch-


I will give her credit that she does know how to delete emails

And thanks again for the lame rightwing talking point.

Oh,

And it's FINE for everyone to bitch about gramps age when he was running....right?

NO BUSH NO CLINTON

This country needs Elizabeth. Age shouldn't be a disqualifier.

So we have a rich person who can't drive and has spent the last half of her life in an ivory tower-

And she wants to be president-

No thanks-

NO CLINTON NO BUSH

Oh, and don't even make me start finding posts about gramps age when he was running with Failin- Hypocrisy is easy to call out when there is a history and a search engine

first, I still think Elizabeth Warren WILL run as Hillary's poll numbers continue to decline.

Second, Hillary can't drive because of Secret Service protection. You can't hold that against her.

And third, I don't remember the criticism about McLame's age, so much as the senility he displayed in taking ridiculous positions, which is a different issue. No one here can accuse Hillary of being senile. She might be out of touch, she herself being a wealthy 1%er, but that's because she's aligned herself with Wall Street corporatists and the ultra-rich.

because that was of course Hillary's fault since she was married to him when he pardoned the guy.

and the LOGO!

that this is just the introduction & roll out phase & she'll get to the deeper issues when this first phase is finished.

everything by DAY 1 !!!!! The HORROR!!!!!

she should have explained everything BEFORE she declared.

Pure branding.

what will we do???

She can't even give the topics that will be her focus? Had she not decided what attests to her? Or does she just not want to commit yet?

other candidates or near-candidates have laid out a platform for us yet, or is Secretary Clinton supposed to be held to a much higher standard than all others?

I can certainly understand why many people may need a full eighteen months to decipher, unravel and translate simple platform and policy positions. Insulting, indeed...

I don't see why Hillary can't just remain true to herself. Or else, people will see right through her as being fake, driven only by polls.

Well-- that being the case, we can certainly understand why one may feel churlishly forced to pontificate on logos and hair instead... it's only rational to see those two being the only other available options for discussion.

the prospect of the possibility of a woman being President for five minutes, but it didn't let me down.

Assuming she doesn't feel it's a negative to be consorting with lefties.

I don't get what that had to do with my post.

Thanks for making this subthread totally bizarre.

So glad we had this stupid conversation.

The net is full of assholes, I have noticed. Funny how we had that son of a Bush as president and never once did anyone mention his looks. Let a woman run and the first thing they want to do is talk about her appearance.

I think your heart is in the right place and your implicit point that looks should be irrelevant I totally agree with.

However, your assertion that this is only women (and your cite of Bush) is just wrong. Bush had his looks compared often to a chimp. This was ongoing. People mentioned his looks often as a method of derogating him (implying stupidity by appearance) rather than just sticking to the fact that he was a policy disaster. Much was made of Scott Brown as a playgirl model to imply he was an airhead.

In the democratic party, there are plenty of examples. Right from the start, John Edwards was labeled a pretty boy and there was much discussion about his hair. There were plenty of assertions that kuchinich could not win because of his looks. Those were negative assertions. There were positive ones on Clinton and Obama about looking hip and being good looking.

It is a more sensitive topic with women because of historical issues of society associating a woman's whole worth with her appearance but it also happens with men. With men the word attractive is not used as much in politics but is short formed to "looking presidential". However, almost always the first thing people pundits and commentators describe is how the candidate appears. I often hear "i like or trust the way this candidate looks" applied to male candidates. My aunt used to drive me crazy with this statement of why she supported Reagan. This may be a facet of human nature to be influenced by appearance and maybe unavoidable to some extent.

The problem is when appearance is all that people look at. Basically there net is just full of assholes as you have observed and some of these people composed of both sexes judge others and concentrate only on appearance rather than substance.

think about their physical attractiveness.

Why do you have to tell people that "you'd date her"??

Serious, what does that have to do with the tea in china and what bearing does it have on a presidential campaign.

I'm sorry I even bothered to reply to you. MYBAD

the only rec on that offensive tripe where the guy got the boot as a return troll..

What do you expect someone to think... I was aghast it was recommended, so I looked. I don't usually care, but that OP was sexist clap trap, and you rec'd it and made that comment.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:18 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Go away,
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6501564

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

Incredibly rude and inappropriate. This is a message board. Poster could have ignored the thread instead of resorting to personal attacks.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 14, 2015, 09:22 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: His stupidity is showing. No reasoning with his big head.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: these two posters are perfectly able to deal with issues themselves.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: If that's a personal attack, it's the mildest one I've ever seen.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Jeeze, can you alert on anything more inane? Save it for when it counts; stop wasting my time.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: didya read what this poster responded to? cause he's right BB should go away and take their flame bait shit stirring trolling with them.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: You call out another member in the OP then object when they respond to that. Really?

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Can keep that info to yourselves, thank you.

I don't think I did. In fact in life I've dated many women who I had no interest in going to bed with so get your head out of the gutter, ok

Jeeze Loise

Inappropriate.

get over yourself ok

Women. Because we working women are sick of this shit. Seriously dude. Keep it to yourself.

nor say anything about getting in the sack with her so get off my ass. Is that how you see all men who ask you for a date, only to get in your pants. Sad if it is

that is sexist, and has no place here whether you are a eunuch or have lots of sex partners. she is a competent professional, not here to please your eyes.

Get off my ASS

For the job. Stop thinking of her as an object that should pleae your eyes

Please tell me that you'll whip out 'hysterical' for your encore.

Payback I guess.

It's demeaning. And I say that as someone who would really rather see another viable Democratic candidate.

And how does one tell? What if some creepy prev wants to have sex with a woman--she should think 'compliment'?

I'm beginning to feel like I'm back in the 2nd grade..

But you already knew that.

There are absolutely no one talking about her track record, or how her new speeches have very little to do with her past campaigns.

Nope. It's all about pantsuits.

attack women they do not like.

kinda obvious, right? and kinda the point.

yes. people using sexism to diss clinton, an easy diss at women and often used, would support warren and call out any sexism coming her way. they clearly know and recognize the sexism. as they will also use against republican women. but.... they absolutely refrain from sexism with their choice.

a tool

I've seen thought out, well articulated criticism of Senetor Clinton that were not sexist. It's quickly becoming the less used way to criticize her on some venues, I believe is the point.

her talons nails?

Does she chew them or simply scrape them on the walls at Lehman Brothers?

Being a Vivian Vance look alike and focusing on a logo. A god damned logo.

I'll be honest - she's not my first choice - but I won't hold my nose if she's the nominee to vote for her. I would gladly do it. And you won't see me picking at her over stupid nitpicky bullshit.

I want good thorough primary debates - and a nominee that can take pieces from the others and build a strong coalition of ideas going into the g.e.

Especially this bit:

I'll be honest - she's not my first choice - but I won't hold my nose if she's the nominee to vote for her. I would gladly do it. And you won't see me picking at her over stupid nitpicky bullshit.

I'm never entirely enthusiastic about our candidates (I have to admit, Obama was the first Democrat I've been thrilled to vote for nationally, but I do vote Democrat) but I won't need to hold my nose either.

i was disappointed but felt sure hillary would not do those two things.

and kinda skip along with it?

I agree with what you wrote

But, the OP is either lying or has been very selective
Because there have been substantive issues and questions brought up about her that the OP seems to have missed/disregarded

bloody murder.

I was hoping skinner's ops would calm things down.

Apprently not.

I've seen and talked about the following:

1. Her position on climate change
- Her support for fracking. Her keynote speech at the National Clean Energy Summit and her lecture at Hamilton College where she supported it.
-While Secretary of State she pushed fracking in countries like Bulgaria with little to know environmental laws
- The Keystone Pipeline, in 2012, while Secretary of State her office recommended to the President that they deny the permits to build it

2. H1B Visas.
-She has been a vigorous supporter of expanding the program in the past.
- I'll be interested in how she feels now. (People do genuinely change and modify their positions)

3. Free Trade Agreements
- She has supported free trade agreements in the past
- As Secretary of State she would have been actively involved in the TPP negotiations. It's hard to know her position since the negotiations are secret

4. Economic Issues
- She voted for the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001.
- She said she voted for an overhaul to the bankruptcy system that would have made debt forgiveness more difficult for borrowers to obtain.
- Clinton did not vote on the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005. In 2008, she said she'd have voted against it. She was derided by then Sen Obama who voted No in 2005.


If all you've seen are stories on her shoes, her appearance and hair, you really haven't been looking very hard. Or you've just seen what you want to see

And let's not forget the most sexist of all - blaming her for everything they don't like about Bill under the unbelievably sexist notion that she couldn't possibliy have a thought of her own that doesn't mirror his.

It is embarrassing.

Having a well known political career, and a former presidential election cycle under her belt there seems to be little to discuss in this venue.

Not that 'hot or not' is an acceptable substitute for material political position disassembly and discussion.

Good lord.....ugh

is the new shrill

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026503880

and we are just two or three days in.

instead of a simple.... knock that fuckin shit off, can you be so blatant.

"Why does she wear her skirts so short at her age?"
"Wow, time has not been kind to her face..." (and she's gorgeous)
"She's a horrible mother and left her children to pursue law, politics, other men..."

it makes me sick.

Hillary is not my choice, and there isn't anything anyone can say or do to change that (so I guess that makes me a "hater&quot , but the asinine comments about her appearance are over the line.

Hillary launched with a video showing random actors portraying average Americans and loads of empty slogans on twitter. We've been speculating about her political philosophy for years, so the only new thing to discuss are topics like her logo and hair.

She supplied the vacuum and the plebs filled it.

Of course, maybe some want us to treat her different because of her gender, which is...well, rather benevolent.

policy and positions.

Really it is all about the logo and her efforts to steal vital information from wikileaks (including a logo that looks nothing like hers) onto her private servers. Not the ones we know about, but the ones she keeps hidden in the bat cave. Which she paid for and does not have a working volcano with automated roof, so quit saying that!

Face it, she is secretly undermining wikileaks and all their supporters agree with her so now it's up to John Oliver to interview her.

Ask her all the important things about DU over the years;

Olive garden, white tigers, chicken threads, breast feeding, wikileaks. 90s hair styles. What other candidate offers more than that? She polls at a greater number than all her whatever they are in the GOP now. Clowns?

A logo can define a company or product. Just ask Ford Motor or Coca Cola. I remember us Obama supporters swooning over his 2008 logo. As for Hillary, I prefer her 2008 logo as well.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
On Tue Apr 14, 2015, 11:25 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

yes, it works great
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6504980

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

So, DU is going to be the place where we mock Democratic Presidential candidates? This hardly seems appropriate for a democratic website. Constructive criticism is one thing, but joining in with the republicans with this childish is over the top.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Apr 14, 2015, 11:37 AM, and the Jury voted 0-7 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I agree with alerter that this is republican ammunition, but not worthy of a hide.
Let the poster defend it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This post could be considered indirect criticism of Hillary's superficial rollout, which, apparently, in the poster's mind, landed with a thud. It's certainly not over the top, especially when it's only the Democratic primary season. It would be different if this was posted during the general election, when we all have to band togerher to defeat the Rethug candidate.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I'm gonna' tell my mommy! My fweelings are hurt! WWAAAAAAAA!!
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Dear alerter: this is not HRC Underground. We are not sworn to loyalty to your candidate.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Mild when compared to other garbage I've seen directed toward Hillary on this Democratic site. I didn't realize how many mean and nasty adolescents post here.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: To the alerter. DU has always been in flames during primaries. Hillary is still in a primary although up until now uncontested so she's fair game and the poster has the right to express this opinion.

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

I guess somebody had a sad

i did not even know what so many were flippin' out over. when i saw it, was all..... meh, odd. but. just a day, .... so defined, straight, right to. it is very clever, i think

I'm glad I missed those conversations. That sounds atrocious. I can't figure out why some men can be the ugliest things on Earth and no one ever mentions their looks or discounts their opinions based on their looks or anything. Women get shit on if we don't look exactly like they think we should. I don't get it. Either do it to men and women equally or don't do it at all. Personally, I wish people wouldn't do it at all. It's stupid.

I have a few problems with a few things she has done, but her looks are never part of the equation for me. Then again, I am a woman and I know that looks should not matter. She can wear whatever she wants. Policies matter more than fashion choices or looks.

The next year and a half is gonna suck.

Posts about superficial trivia are no more a waste of time than threads circling the wagons because of the sexism indicated by women posting about her shoes.

... but it apparently shouldn't be about anything else either, except maybe photo ops.

Embarrassing indeed.

I hear she puts beeswax on them to make them shiny. Do you have any idea how many bee abortions were performed in the last year alone just so Hillary could have shiny shoes?

Oh man, you realize not one anti-abortion person in America is going to vote for Hillary after this comes to light. The humanity!