Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Women Own The Democratic Party

By Martha Burk, TomPaine.com. Posted November 29, 2006.


Analysis shows that female voters determined the 2006 elections. Will women-friendly policy result?

Share and save this post:

      

      

Share on Facebook       

AlterNet Social Networks:
follow us on twitter
find us on Facebook

In Special Coverage

Belief:
Is Blind Faith in God and the Bible a Modern Invention?
Devilstower

Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace:
What Can the Morass of the 1970s Tell Us About the Current Economic Crisis?
Alejandro Reuss

DrugReporter:
Why Are We Locking Up Traumatized Veterans for Their Addictions Instead of Offering Them Treatment?
Penny Coleman

Environment:
Why Max Baucus' 'No' Vote on the Climate Bill May Really Help Its Passage
Jeff Mcmahon

Food:
Soda Helps Make Americans Unhealthy and Fat -- Will Soda Tax Prevail Despite Pushback by Beverage Industry?
Christine Spolar, Joseph Eaton

Health and Wellness:
Does the House Bill's Public Option Kill Off the Senate's?
Booman

Immigration:
Recent Democratic Victories May Grease the Wheels for Immigration Reform in Congress
Marcelo Balive

Media and Technology:
Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh Stoking GOP Civil War
Eric Boehlert

Movie Mix:
The Yes Men: Pranksters Out to Fix the World
Mark Engler

Politics:
What Obama Is Up Against in His Own Branch of Government
Russ Baker

Reproductive Justice and Gender:
"Precious" Star Claims the Spotlight
Emily Wilson

Rights and Liberties:
Hard to Believe: 73 U.S. Kids Sentenced to Life Without Parole at 14 or Younger, and All Are Black
Liliana Segura

Sex and Relationships:
9 Silly Things People Say When They Hear You Don't Want Kids (And Ways to Counter Them)
Liz Langley

Take Action:
G-20 Meetings: Nothing Much Happened in the Suites, and There Was Too Much Punch in the Streets
Laura Flanders

Water:
Radioactive Wastewater in New York Raises More Concerns About Oil Drilling
Abrahm Lustgarten

World:
Afghanistan Is Worse Off Than Ever, Thanks to the Sham Army We're Propping Up
Chris Hedges

More stories by Martha Burk

Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

November 2006 is shaping up to be a very good month for women in politics on both sides of the Atlantic. In what The Christian Science Monitor dubbed another French revolution, Socialist Ségolène Royal trounced her male competitors last week in France's presidential primary. For the first time, a woman has a realistic chance of becoming that country's head of state. Add that to the unprecedented number of female candidates and winners in the U.S. elections, topped off by the first female speaker of the house, and the trend is clear: Women are now flexing political muscle like never before.

What is the lesson going forward from November here at home? Women won, but not just the candidates or the new speaker. Female voters triumphed, too. This year women's votes determined the outcome in virtually all the seats that turned over. The gender gap is back after the Democrats squandered it in 2004 when men voted for Bush in greater numbers than women went for Kerry. More importantly, women's concerns will not only lead the way in the post-election debates about direction in the new Congress, but will continue to decide who gets elected in the first place.

That's the message out of two major polls just released. Ms. Magazine commissioned an election eve survey to evaluate any possible gender gap in post-election priorities, and Lifetime TV teamed with Redbook Magazine to poll women and men on how they actually voted. Though questions were different, the message was the same: Women are tired of not being able to trust their leaders, they want change and that change should include more females in leadership positions. Lifetime/Redbook found that women are perceived as three times more trustworthy than men, and four in 10 voters overall thought men were more likely to be the subject of a scandal. Ms. looked at the gender breakdown on this one, considering no female faces have been seen peeking out from behind pedophile curtains, nor smiling with Abramoff or being led away in handcuffs for taking bribes. Not surprisingly, women say electing more women would have an impact on the culture of corruption in Washington -- a 9 point gender gap with men on the subject.

Buried in the Ms. results is a loud warning bell for Republicans. While all voters rated Iraq number 1 in importance, there were differences between the genders on this question. Republican women are more intense about ending the war than any other group, with 73 percent of them rating it as a very high priority. They're ahead of even their Democratic sisters on this one.

The Ms. poll, conducted by Lake Research Partners, measured what might be called the "intensity factor" on the issues. Gender gaps were most evident on the domestic agenda, including child care and education. But the widest divergence with the men came on the minimum wage -- a 17 percent gap between female support for an increase and male support for it. This isn't surprising given that most minimum wage workers are adult women. But politicians should take note: Women also fueled the passage of all six minimum wage initiatives. Jobs and the economy were the second highest concern for independent female voters -- that's the group both parties need to swing things their way in 2008.

On the question of female leadership, Lifetime's poll shows advances for women are no fluke, and are part of a dramatic new acceptance of and support for women's political leadership -- on the part of men as well as women. Roughly one third of voters said they were more likely to vote in an election with a female candidate, more likely to believe a female candidate and more likely to pay attention to her political ads.

Changes here and abroad add up to increasing political viability for women as political leaders -- all the way to the top of the ticket. If Ségolène Royal is elected, a woman will preside over the world's sixth largest economy, and head a country with a permanent seat on the U.N. Security Council. That will go a long way toward making female leadership at the highest levels "normal."

In the two years since Lifetime's last poll the percentage of adults who think a woman will be elected U.S. president in 2008 has nearly doubled. With the high probability that the Democrats will choose Hillary Clinton as the standard bearer, and the clout of females at the polls, the U.S. could be on the cusp of a female political revolution of its own.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: women, leadership, gender gap

Martha Burk is the money editor for Ms, and author of Cult of Power: Sex Discrimination in the Workplace and What Can Be Done About It.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Uh ohhh...
Posted by: Intraspecto on Nov 29, 2006 12:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here come the soccer moms...run for your rights to bear arms...Hello Nancy Pelosi- good by 2nd Ammendment rights...

Oh look, theres Rosie O'Donnell!! The very woman who said that the Second Ammendment was not a right. And look, she even has ARMED bodyguards, but claim that everyday average people should not have guns...

These people formentioned are as bad as Bush, but on the other side of the fence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Do you Posted by: Donna_Darko
» RE: Do you Posted by: Intraspecto
» RE: Do you Posted by: laoma
» RE: Do you Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Do you Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Do you Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Do you Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Do you Posted by: techphile
» RE: Do you Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Do you Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Uh ohhh... Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Uh ohhh... Posted by: Burton
» RE: Uh ohhh... Posted by: Bibs
» RE: Uh ohhh... Posted by: Bibs
Fad-O-Matic
Posted by: edith on Nov 29, 2006 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Media desperately lives by slogans: soccer Moms, NASCAR dads.

GOP Women more against Iraq than nDem Women are?

Polls have become a substitute for reading history and taking a long view of things. Listen to "pundits' of any stripe. they pontificate about women, the people, Bush supporters, Democrats, etc. and it's all based on polls. Reporters on elite media come out of IvyLeague schools and have lilttle or no interchange with ordinary people in suburbs, exurbs, or small town America let alone black or Hispanic neighborhoods.

The only polls that count are the election results and in between elections the emails, calls and messages people send to Congress and state legislatures.

Minorities(not racial kind) determine major policy by money and persistent lobbying and organizing(Christian Coalition, vet groups, farmers).

Simple messages do well; Congressmen and staffs are attention challenged.

Out Now of Iraq.

That is a message every man and woman should send to Congress now.

The shockwave of every larger votes to pull out will pull down the Bush element once and for all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A politician is a politician
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Nov 29, 2006 1:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary?...Condi?...Who says all slimy, slithering, bottom-feeding, creepy-crawly creatures are male?

If women are "tired of not being able to trust their leaders", I would advise against holding your breath just because a few women get elected.

The perception is interesting though. Ironically, I think it comes from a partriarchal society that thinks women are pure and motherly while men are predatory and competitive.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

good
Posted by: rsaxto on Nov 29, 2006 2:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is good news for women, good news for all Americans and good news for the world. Just don't vote for basket case women/men who are slaves to corporate greed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

and yet ...
Posted by: anothername on Nov 29, 2006 3:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Leading Voices: Iowa (only selected items online at www.maggiefeld.com), a post-election summary noted that, based upon a news release from Harry Reid's office, 38% of the elected and appointed Senate Democratic leadership is female. This includes Sen. Patty Murray (WA) who will serve as conference secretary. It also includes Debbie Stabenow (MI) as chair of the steering and outreach committee and Blanche Lincoln (AR) as chair of rural outreach.

Yet, women I encounter in organized Democratic groups at the grassroots level continue to fixate on what party leaders say and not what the women around them are demanding. I have become more discouraged in recent months as news item after news item fixates on the number of women running for office and even then only those women running as Republicans or Democrats (forget women in the Libertarian, Green, Conservative, or other political parties). As women (or any other group) have more high-profiled members in high authority positions, it offers more role models for others to follow and makes it more acceptable to pursue those positions. That is good. However, merely having women (or members of any other group) in a position does not mean the world will improve. Thus, while we may rejoice when a woman breaks a new barrier, we must demand that our interests (whether male or female, mainstream or not yet mainstream) are also met.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

RACE&GENDER==DIVIDE&RULE-->the FakeLeft is all about gender&racee so the rich can keep their GREEN!
Posted by: not_the_preferred_nomenclature on Nov 29, 2006 4:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
RACE&GENDER==DIVIDE&RULE-->the FakeLeft is all about gender&racee so the rich can keep their GREEN!

Lemme tell ya a story about how the rich folks got together and changed the American Left to a fakeLeft so that the Left would no longer be all about taxing the rich and using that money to provide healthcare for all Americans, but instead be all about race and gender and other unsolvable, divisive wedge issues! Well, all the rich folks had to do was give money to nonprofit foundations and then have the foundations give money to activists and writers who would write about race and gender and other divisive wedge instead of about progressive taxation and universal healthcare and other populist economics issues that would divide working class americans. Pit man against women, black against white, and then just set back and enjoy the show, folks! After about 20 or 30 years of nonprofits funding this Identity Politics oriented fakeLeft, hardly any Leftists even remember the OLD Left. THey were all about the new kind of leftism created by the rich folks--the FAKEleft. The race and gender Left.
You doubt me? Just count up how many stories on fakeLeft outfits like Alternet are about populist economics and how many are about Identity politics.

So that is what the mission of Alternet and other fakeLeft nonprofits is, kids!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Concern troll Posted by: Donna_Darko
Jesus, Can We Forget Hillary?
Posted by: NoPCZone on Nov 29, 2006 7:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In a country of 300 million there are far better, and far more qualified women than that DINO/DLC rhymes with witch NY Senator from Arkansas/Illinois. I'm all for women assuming their proper place at the political table, but I will never vote for that corrupt shill for every kind of scumbag back in her days as Arkansas First Lady/ Lawyer for hire.

This chick sat on the corporate board of Wal-Mart, but did nothing about their well known fanatical anti-union activities, sub-par wages, skin-flint benefits and pitiful health care package. She was a director of the company, her husband at the time was the governor of the state the company is headquartered in and she said/did nothing. Uh-huh, that tells you all you need to know about Mrs Opportunity.

She'd sell her soul, if it were necessary and she will sell you down the river as well.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Jesus, Can We Forget Hillary? Posted by: ALANHESTER
Alternet sure knows how to DISCRIMINATE against men ! Economic populism anyone ?!?!?
Posted by: NDnative on Nov 29, 2006 7:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here these Feminist-Bungholios go again ! It's only about women, blah blah blah ! Well, if Alternet would SHUT THE FUCK up and take a real look at both the south and the midwest, they'd have realized that in the past more women voted Republican than Democrat because the Democrats kept on thinking that focusing on frivolous social issues all the while IGNORING important issues such as the economy, environment, foreign policy, etc ... or worse PANDERING to the "right" on those issues. STOP DIVIDING MEN AND WOMEN !!!! That kind of shit belongs to the rightwing, not the genuine left !!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hillary Backlash
Posted by: NonnyO on Nov 29, 2006 7:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I WISH, WISH, WISH, pundits would STOP shoving Hillary down our throats weekly as the next Dem candidate for president....! She can't win, and her candidacy would guarantee a continuation of Bu$hite dictatorship.

Hillary is pro-war. The number of people in this country who didn't figure out during the Y2K prez debates that boy georgie would invade Iraq to finish his daddy's war have finally figured out he lied, many thousands have died, and Dems and 'Pukes and dang near everyone else is still sitting on their hands. All talk; no action. Get our people out of Iraq NOW. Not somewhere in the future on some idiotic proposed timeline. NOW. They've all died for lies and oil and no other reason whatsoever. They're certainly not being killed in Iraq for my freedoms or yours, and they're participating in a war crime committed by Bu$hCo. The invasion and occupation is a war crime, and we have to deal with that fact and impeach and try the perpetrators at the top sooner or later, and it might as well be sooner. As long as Hillary - or any other woman or man in politics - refuse to advocate a get out of Iraq NOW policy as well as sending Bu$h, Cheney, Rummy, Condi, Gonzales, et al., to be tried for war crimes, voters will stay home from the polls in droves in '08.

Hillary is a DINO, and she wouldn't have mainstream Democratic support because of her pro-war stance. Get over it, move on, Dems need to choose someone else for a presidential candidate in '08.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hillary Backlash Posted by: ALANHESTER
Pathetic
Posted by: vkobaya on Nov 29, 2006 7:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another loser who needs a gun to be manly. Without your guns, you would be an eunuch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It Damned Well Better...
Posted by: bob t on Nov 29, 2006 9:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Will women friendly policy result"? As a male, I say it damned well better result in women friendly policy for the largest discrimnated group in America and in the world. If it happens here in America we will be a shining beacon for women all over the world and a most christian thing for America to do. Theocon women like Peggy Noonan and Phyliss Schlafly may not want that to happen but then they are part of the party of corruption and one of their staunchest supporters, the Catholic Church, my church but not my theology. Anyone or group that damages women and children, the most powerless in our society, damages us ALL.

PRAY FOR PEACE

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It Damned Well Better... Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: It Damned Well Better... Posted by: Landbaron
Women will rule the world
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 29, 2006 10:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
THE FEMINIST AGENDA -- In their leaders’ own words:

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified
as a lesbian to be fully feminist." (National NOW Times, Jan.1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the
women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom
for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (radial
feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

3. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to
serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice
that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that."
(Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, "The Daily
Illini," April

25, 1981.

4. The most merciful thing a large family can do to one of its infant
members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood,
in "Women and the New Rage," p.67.

5. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from
families and communally raise them." (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and
assistant professor of education at Wellesley College and associate
director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

6. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally
sanctioned method of control over women... We must work to destroy it.
The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the
liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women
to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of
history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go
back to ancient female religions like witchcraft." (from "The Declaration
of Feminism," November 1971).

7. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the
whole... patriarch!" (Gloria Steinhem, radical feminist leader, editor of
'MS' magazine).

8. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory
abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the
Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world."
(Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times", October
10, 1989).

9. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement,
solace and inspiration from real women... Two thousand years of
patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn
women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie
Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," "The Humanist", July/August 1988, p.37.

10. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in
human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinhem, editor of 'MS' magazine.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» A question for the women Posted by: Burton
» Okay, I'll bite Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Okay, I'll bite Posted by: Burton
» RE: A question for the women Posted by: mizkaye
» RE: Women will rule the world Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: Women will rule the world Posted by: Landbaron
» Uh... Posted by: Burton
» RE: Women will rule the world Posted by: Landbaron
» RE: Women will rule the world Posted by: ALANHESTER
» RE: Women will rule the world Posted by: Landbaron
Now for some real equality
Posted by: Burton on Nov 29, 2006 11:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Dem congressman Charles Rangel has proposed re-instating the draft. So since women own the Democratic Party, let's start with a military draft of females. Come to think of it, let's see an affirmative action draft of women for combat duties. And no exemptions!

Wouldn't this be great? Couldn't you just see your University's Womyn's Studies Department being marched on off to Afghanistan, heads shaven, camouflage BDUs, M4s at the ready, Hillary calling the cadence!

This will happen, of course, since the Democrats believe in equality, right?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Women's votes put W in office also. So what does that prove?
Posted by: Sojourner on Nov 29, 2006 12:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That women are fickle? That women can gauge who the winner will be and so go with the pack?

Where does the idea that women are a voting bloc come from? Ah, yes. "Alice" must have a something to justify its existence.

It reminds me of something I just learned recently on AlterNet when we heard from the proud rebels who don't want the Demos to write off the South. "I am proud of my southern heritage," is what we heard.

Why is it that there's no such thing as a northern heritage? There's just an American heritage and a southern heritage. Because *southern* heritage is based on being contrary, against, rebel to the core?

So it is with what was once the proud movement of American feminism. Now it's just "us against them; women against the world." So we have American voters and female voters?

Gimme a break. What fools we mortals be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Burton, you would yell like hell if there was ANY draft
Posted by: Ellie1 on Nov 29, 2006 12:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is YOUR president who even created conditions where a draft might be needed. It is YOUR war. If women were in charge, there woulldn't even BE a war (except for Barbara Bushit). women negotiate, women (on the whole) are more flexible and less willing to kill innocent peole for NOTHING. Unlike George bushit and the Republican party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Don't blame me! Posted by: Burton
» robby Posted by: robby
» RE: robby Posted by: Burton
Good for women!!
Posted by: TheNamelessCity on Nov 29, 2006 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Keeping basic rights and freedoms for ALL, in the US and everywhere else on earth, will ultimately be up to WOMEN. They are most frequently targeted by patriarchal laws that unabashedly roll back hard-earned rights and protections, usually based upon conservative religious dogma. If the US and the world ever truly become peaceful and civilized, it will be thanks to the efforts of WOMEN fighting for their rights and dignity everywhere, leading the way against those who would remove those rights and keep them homebound, poor, invisible, and pregnant.

"You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free." – Clarence Darrow

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Good for women!! Posted by: Burton
hilary = maggie thatcher all over again...
Posted by: Annapurna1 on Nov 29, 2006 2:39 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
yeah right...like she was such a big help for women...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Totally False Article
Posted by: faultroy on Nov 29, 2006 4:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First let me congratulate the other posters for their thoughtful and inciteful comments. For the first time in a long time the caliber of posts is really high and I really enjoyed reading the comments as much as the article.
Secondly, this article implies that women were the main reason for the Republican Downfall. This of course is nonsense especially since more women vote than men, and neither men nor women can have either parties (Democrats, or Republicans) elected without the tacit cooperation of the opposite sex. Furthermore as everyone that has closely looked at the election voting results knows, the races were so tight in so many districts that gender had really nothing to do with it. In most races, the variation was between two and four percent. The political consensus is tha Iraq and the Administration's failed policies along with a dissalusionment over the current Congress' (Republican dominated) inability to engender meaningful change is the reason Republicans are no longer in power.
Furthermore the the silly comment on the part of the author indicating that "women are tired of their politicians not being honest..." is not only laughable but pathetic. Of course men and other "non women" prefer their politicians to be dishonest--that is why they vote for them!!!
These kind of mindless, dishonest, ignorant, poorly reasoned articles do more to demonstrate the lack of sophistication and honesty within the Feminist Movement than they do in illuminating various political facts and trends.
It is comforting to me that women--regardless of their party affiliation are finally starting to seriously question and critically evaluate the silliness and immature rhetoric these Feminist "talking heads" are espousing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yes: Totally False Article Posted by: Burton
John Edwards for President
Posted by: Landbaron on Nov 29, 2006 5:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
No Brainer, google him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John Edwards for President Posted by: opeluboy
I might vomit
Posted by: opeluboy on Nov 30, 2006 5:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I here and now pledge that if it comes down to a choice of the worthless, phony, warmongering, triangulating, gutless Hillary Clinton and some Repug, I will vote Green.

And don't tell me I'd be throwing my vote away or helping to elect anothe Repug. Too bad. If the Dems can't come up with a decent candidate — and I said "decent" not spectacular — they don't deserve my vote or yours.

I will not vote for that disgusting bitch.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Syllogism
Posted by: ekipnrut on Nov 30, 2006 10:20 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The consensus of the posters appears to be that Hillary
Clinton is unable to win if nominated and unfit to serve
if elected.....a more than adequate assessment of this
embodiment of an essentially character flawed inanity
in any serious quest for a credible viable candiate,
who is implacable in their advocacy of basic human dignity.
Unlike the Senator...who would be set upon by human wave
assaults from the 'Remember the Whitewater" brigade(s)
of repug white females while simultaneously suffering
(absolutely justified) mass desertions by the rank and file
white female progs...indeed ANY white woman who isn't
two handed gulping the fuckin' DNC/DLC Kool Aid.
As for men...just substitute'male' for 'female' in the above.

As for Blacks...it's Thursday night November 30...as most
people know there was another ritual lynching by a racist
NYC cops' fusillade a few days ago..I think the funeral is
upcoming....Gee I wonder if her 'Plantation' water mouth
adopted rhetoric will manage to put in an appearance ...
No doubt..she is weighing and triangulating....

Redbook???....Ms. Magazine ???....Lifetime TV??
WTF have these infotainment venues got to do with
women of color or low income women.???

Women?...Women?...does Burk's vista include
Katherine Harris??...how about some of the women
the repugs would like to see on the Supreme Court???

Let's see...
hypothesis
The formerly oppressed become the most ruthless
oppressors. i.e. American white women..the MAIN
beneficiaries of Affirmative Action. (irony..irony!!! )
hypothesis
Nevertheless some AWW can sniff out and reject a
sewer rat regardless of race..e.g. Condi or Hillary
Conclusion
Tell the stupid racist 'beyatches' NOT what they want to
hear but what they need to know...so they can lift
themselves up by their bra strap....

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Syllogism Posted by: Burton
segolene royale
Posted by: clairec on Nov 30, 2006 10:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Speaking as a French woman, living in France right now, I can certify that having Segolene as one of my country's two major presidential candidates is not a positive change at all.
First, polls showed that she passed the first round simply because she was a woman, not because of her political ideas, which gives you glimpse at how women politicians are truly considered.
Moreover, her political ideas are all but non-existent... and when she does voice them, they frightenlingly ressemble those of right-winged quasi-reactionary other candidate Sarkozy... consider this bearing in mind she is the candidate for the french SOCIALIST party...
I could say a lot more but don't have time to elaborate... in short this is no positive change for the world, France, and least of all, women.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: segolene royale Posted by: ekipnrut
robby
Posted by: robby on Dec 2, 2006 12:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Democratic party is now under the floodlights of scrutiny, since they have regained control in congress. I have always voted as a Democrat, but they better show some gumption and resolve in reforming our sorry ass federal government.
There is so much damage to fix, by the White House, and the stooges that gave Dumb Ass carte blanche, to impliment every idiotic initiative he advanced. We should all scrutinise the next 2 years to see if any reform comes about. If it doesn't it makes it irrelevant as to which party is in control, as it will mean just more of the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement