Hillary's Campaign: A Proxy For Women's Rights?

Is that what this is all about? Do Hillary supporters see her nomination fight as a proxy fight over women's rights in general?

If so, I think it is the wrong way to bring attention and action to this critical matter.

I agree that gender discrimination and inequality is a problem that rates right up there with racial inequality and discrimination. If Hillary supporters want to change America for the betterment of women in this country - I am all for that.

But if Clinton achieves the nomination in the manner she has set forth - by reneging on her Florida and Michigan agreements, and by discounting caucus states (like Iowa) who don't tally a popular vote count - what then, will women truly have achieved?

Will they be able to say they "bested" men - at their own game? Will underhanded methods, outright dishonesty, and back-room deals truly bring the equality women seek?

Or will they ultimately shoot themselves in the foot this way?

or to create a media narrative that explains election fraud.

That's why it distresses to see Hillary and her surrogates feed this nonsense.

In fact, they are setting back the women's movement.

And the fact that most of these so-called feminists are claiming that they will either vote McCain or write in Hillary's name shows how uncommitted they are to women's rights. If they really cared about women's rights they would get behind the Democratic nominee, no matter who it is, because if they write in Hillary's name the presidency will go to McCain.

Spoiled losers who just whine and spoil the "game" for everyone else just because they didn't get their way. Fucking sick of them.

It's funny that her campaign brands Obama supporters as "kool-aid
drinkers" when HER supporters appear to be taking this campaign far
more personally, and, as you've pointed out, a proxy for their fight
for equal rights. I also agree that they may not be doing themselves
any favors in the way they've fought this fight and, especially now
that the cause appears to have been lost, their refusal to face
reality. We've just endured 8 years of hardship thanks to a presi-
dent who has stubbornly refused to change course, preferring his
own delusions to the truth. Our nation cannot risk another leader
who spurns the "reality-based community."

And if I'm guilty of ANY kool-aid, it's Kucinich-ade! I still got Obama's back, though.

simply because she's a woman.

Explain how forcing Dems to nominate the candidate who is weaker against McCain makes sense.

the nomination, barring an historically unprecedented number of defections among pledged and super delegates committed to Barack Obama.

Her genitals have nothing to do with it.

that's the race that counts, not some DNC rigged primary.

according to DNC rules, and those rules include primaries and caucuses, and weight those far more heavily than the opinions of the superdelegates. Hillary is in a position now where she cannot realistically win the nomination. That isn't to say that Hillary doesn't deserve to win, that she isn't a strong candidate, or that she wouldn't be a good President, of course. It's just that she isn't going to win the nomination, and some people would like to see the Democrats acknowledge that, and move on to take on McCain.

We don't rig the primary to choose the candidate who can't win.

can vote however they like. They can vote on who is stronger in November. They can vote on who would be the better President. They can vote on who makes a better bowl of chili. Personally, I think the first two are Obama and the third is likely Edwards, but that's just me.

Nothing has been 'rigged.' So far, the rules that all candidates agreed to have been followed clearly, cleanly, and consistently.

If you mean it is "DNC rigged" because they are following rules agreed upon earlier, then I think maybe you might want to use a different phrase there.

Just sayin...


Laura

without acknowledging that it is pure conjecture on your part. At least I don't think so. But please, elaborate as to how she is superior. I would also like to know, as another poster pointed out elsewhere, how she can win the GE against such rampant sexism if she can't win the primaries against rampant sexism.

"The superior candidate"- No.

"is being forced out" - No.

"because she's a woman" - And, No.

is there some other metric out there we can use that is "better?"

Because one of them will lose. If it's perceived to be a referendum on rights, then the losers will feel that their rights were rejected, not just their candidate.

This isn't about anybody but her, and never has been.



Laura

all sex and races.

to serve her own selfish, egotistical purpose.

the voting booth this November.

by decades. This is prone to happen when you are a liar and really only fighting for your own damn self.

And so like the neocons...