If Hillary is losing because of sexism...

then why was she leading by 30% 7 months ago? That's what I really don't understand about this argument. Did America become astronomically more sexist in the past 7 months?

:shrug:

There it is.

Good grief--sexism only entered the equation when she started losing!

NOT ! :evilgrin:

--IMM

Then I am a one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater, rather than a female white feminist of a certain age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_People_Eater

:rofl:

shoulda got a sopranino sax and learned to play it. (That's what's playing that annoying little instrumental bit at the end.)

Back when she was winning, sexism was brought up. She said it's not because of sexism. That because she is winning, they are picking on her.

and bad mouthed her. Pretend uncommittedd Rep Clybourn for example.

...lord have mercy on me.

Woe! Woe is me!

GOP style- you can blame Rove or whomever- is not to balance substantial weakness or badness with something positive and good. Why do that? It shows ambivalence, increases basic distrust and confusion and grinds the gears of the agenda.

What they have simply chosen in a bold move of "daring" is to play off two minuses in such a way as to emerge more powerful from the collision. Racism was a destructive card that hurt both candidates. So take another one, sexism and throw it furiously without much deep thought into the mess. Result: if the cards are played right and ALWAYS dumbed down, they cancel out in the hands of the power manipulator.

Dangerous? Brilliant? Not at all if the MSM backs up your cause or is that dumbed down to begin with. We have the NY Post with a disingenuous full page touting of the "dream ticket". Now their collision of two negatives, feminism and racism(and anti-Clintonism sure to follow) will never be allowed to benefit the Dems. This strategy only works as a bully tactic in the hands of tyranny that can act and speak with relative impunity to the masses.

You can say what is apparent that Hillary is using the enemies tools to prevail over her own party as the GOP has prevailed in the past, no matter. In the end, in the hands of the GOP power machine, this game would love to resolve into Dems suckered into a engagement that throws the populace under a bus except for bringing to a temporary bubble all the stupid wrath necessary to get SOMEONE to the polls on their behalf- and sicken the others with despair and desertion.

I have the strong assumption, proved daily by the accepted damage the Clinton campaign gathers like a snowball rolling downhill, that they cannot master nor win by this GOP owned bully tactic, but they can ape it to the final profit of GOP goals- one of which is to run against and defeat the Clintons. Sexism and racism have no place being a divisive issue in our party nominations. Employing fear and rage in the most dumbed down ways possible is to boldly cross into full Joe Lieberman territory once and for all. Trying to play our free voting party in its most critical hour like some sort of personal checkerboard of rage dynamics is a crime not just against the party but everything you care to imagine- especially including the emotional degradation of feminism and civil rights at the core of our democratic principles.

No, the RW does not have a point to make about any of the issues they exploit or counter. It has a club. Picking up that club just makes you one of them. Neither does the Clinton campaign have a point about feminism or the working class or whites or blacks. They are clumsy clubs to wave about pointlessly in a party which cannot believe their top candidate would run like a corporate tyrant Republican against all principle and against even the raw selfish hope of "winning".

By the DU disliked authoress Peggy Noonan in which she points out that

Golda Meir,Indira Gandhi and Margaret Thatcher became the leaders of their country and never complained of sexual discrimination - they just went and took control, of both the Political Parties they represented and their country. Now it seems to me that Ms Noonan missed a few ... perhaps because they are not favoured of the RW

Sirimavo Bandaranaike - Prime Minister of Sri Lanka (Ceylon) Led her party to victory in 1957(!) Was Prime Minister first in 1960 and whenever her party took power was Prime Minister through the 1960's and 70's

Benazir Bhutto - In 1988 sworn in as Prime Minister of Pakistan ... at the age 35

Mary Robinson - President of Ireland 1990 to 1997, United Nations High Commissioner on Human Rights 1997 - 2002

Corazon Aquino - President of the Phillipines 1986 - 1992

None of these people made complaint about the unfairness of their being female in a male dominated society, nor did they bemoan the dirty tricks of their opponents both within and without their Political Parties - they just took the job.

Now compare and contrast Sen Clinton

Link to the DU thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x361335

Link to the article in the WSJ
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121148557268715077.html?mod=djemEditorialPage

and a divider.

the evidence for sexism at the polls just isn't there. Hillary has won the male vote in a number of places and lost the female vote in others. The demographics related to age, income, education, and race cover the overwhelming majority of the variability in the results.

we have the "Hillary effect"