FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Sexism in the US Presidential Election





el_duquee
I'm a lifelong Democrat, but I just don't think I can bring myself to vote for Obama. I'm not going to vote for McCain either since he's a Republican, though. I'll probably just stay home.

What really irritates me about Obama and Biden is the thinly veiled sexism that is going on in their campaigns. First Obama basically spoke down to Hillary and refused to even consider her for the VP slot even though she would be a much better choice that Biden (I still think she'd be better than Obama). He wouldn't even vet her! Just because she's a woman. And then he faulted her for "not bringing together the party." Isn't it the job of the nominee to unite the party? Selecting Hillary as a running mate would have done that for Obama and gained a lot of votes. Obama wouldn't be in such a tight race if he had made the right choice instead of picking someone who is half an idiot and makes a fool of himself, Obama and the party every time he opens his mouth. What an idiot!

And then Biden had that disgusting sneer throughout the VP debate that we women have had to suffer through when dealing with sexist men our whole lives. That whole "don't worry your pretty little head. The men folk will take care of the important stuff" type of look.

And to top it off, they had the gall to criticism Palin for her CLOTHING! Does it get any sexist than that? Because she's a woman they think it's ok to attack her on her clothing and how much she spends. Nevermind that we had to sit through 30 minutes of that mind-numbing infomercial last night that said nothing new or inspiring, but was just a big waste of millions of dollars! If they have so much money left over, they should be using it to help in the all the congressional and senatorial elections going on instead of wasting it. Or here's another idea: Give it back. I know the logistics of returning the money would be difficult, but since the people are suffering in this economy and Obama claims to be :"or the people" how about a little help rather than a stupid infomercial? They could have set up a fund to provide aid to families in need or something.
Bikerman
Well, on a general, non-partisan, point : criticism of clothing is not necessarily confined to one gender.
Here in the UK there was tremendous fuss when Michael Foot (the then Labour leader) wore a duffel coat to the Remembrance service at the Cenotaph in London.
liljp617
It appears your view stems from wanting Clinton to win (or get VP). It didn't happen. Not because of sexism, but because Obama campaigned better and chose a VERY qualified VP who picks up on his lack of foreign policy experience. Clinton took Obama down to the wire...as long as a party candidate race can take. How is her loss due to sexism when she did so well the entire race and came very close to winning? Clinton did fine with the male voters during their race. White male voters were split between the candidates just about the entire race.

You also have to remember that a candidate can't win with JUST male voters, which means many female voters supported Obama, especially later in the election (close to a majority toward the end). Are they sexist as well? And what about the women who voted for Clinton solely based on the fact that she is a woman? Is that sexism or is it fine for women to do it?

It really goes both ways. Same as the race factor. Sure, there are quite a number of people voting for Obama just because he's black. But there are quite a number of people voting against him just because he's black.


As for Biden's demeanor during the debates, it doesn't take a whole lot of knowledge about the man to realize that is his overall demeanor. His attitude would have been the same regardless of opponent (actually, I would argue he would have had an even more demanding attitude had he been debating a male opponent...instead he had to play around out of fear of being called a sexist for destroying Palin and treating her like the dimwit she is).


The clothes situation had nothing to do with her being a woman (assuming we're talking about the same thing). The assertion was that Palin had spent a HUGE sum of money (given to her by the Republican National Committee) on clothes/make up for herself and her husband/kids....upwards of $150,000. That's equivalent to $2,500 a day in the time that she has been VP. If it is true (I haven't really looked into it), it's nothing but a valid point, as it would continue to show how "non-fiscal" Conservatives have become. Has nothing to do with sexism.

Not too long ago, many people got on former Senator John Edwards for spending $400 from his campaign funds on a haircut.


It's completely apparent that the criticism goes both ways. Sure, sexism is still present all over the place. But certainly you're not trying to put forth the idea that the only reason Clinton lost is sexism and that Palin is being treated negatively because she's a woman (rather than for the fact she has little knowledge of the national issues and has made herself look goofy on a number of occasions).
deanhills
Very good points by liljp617. I think Hilary Clinton also made a few mistakes in what she had to say, and so all of it goes both ways. Obama showed stronger and perhaps had been underestimated by both of the Clintons. Perhaps Hilary had been a little overconfident as well.

Clothing wise, think it probably was a necessary expenditure. But then that is just a personal view. Perhaps people wear different clothes in Alaska, and the family was not used to this kind of exposure and campaigning, and so had to be kitted out. Think the amount of money, when you count all the heads in the family, is not really such a big budget. At least it was worth spending it, as the family really looks good for it Smile
liljp617
It's not really the money, it's the principle. But it doesn't really bother me. Just saying...she spent more in a day(for a month straight) than a lot of people make in a month.
fx-trading-education
I think that if you want to find sexism then you will always find some sentences or some actions to support this view. As you would for the opposite.
In other countries the choice of Binden as been considered as excellent and I guess it would have been hard for Hilary Clinton to have been a VP after the very hard battle that occured. I think that if the opponent would have been a men he wouldn't have been selected as VP as well.
About Palin no need to say much about her as it is quite obvious that if you consider the 2 candidates and 2 VP candidates one is clearly far behind the 3 others in terms of competency, knowledge...
And it happens she is the only women... But if it would have been Hilary there would not have been the same thing for instance as I thing people will agree that her level of competence is clearly superior than the one of Palin.
We could even maybe say that the choice of Palin is sexist agaisnt men because I don't think a men incompetent like her would have been chosen as a VP candidate. But I agree that it is not a good argument because they could also have found many competent women.
otncooper
Senator Biden wrote the ground-breaking Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) in the 1990s that set the national agenda on criminalizing violence against women and holding batterers truly accountable. He has worked tirelessly on behalf of women in this regard where-as John McCain sneers at them and has shown great contempt for women, including his wife if you search throughput the years.

Obama couldn't have chosen Hilary if he wanted to. There is a whole part of the Democratic party which want nothing to do with the Clinton machine, this for a lot of reasons one wouldn't really be familiar with unless you were involved in Beltway politics. As soon as they saw Obama won Iowa that section of the party started to support him more heavily, and those who didn't want the Clinton machine running things left for Obama's side of the fence. His non choice of her had nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with the politics of the day.

As far as Palin, it was a consumer watch-dog group that first complained about the use of election funds to purchase the clothing - it is apparently against the law to s spend 150,000 on clothing,make-up and things for your children when the money belongs to your donors or the Federal government.

Palin is an unqualified and potentially dangerous pick because she frankly is not smart enough to have her finger so close to the red button. McCain really ticked off some very qualified Republican women with his choice of Palin. Most people are pretty sure about one thing and that is that whoever is in the Whitehouse has to have a superior intellect.
Bikerman
otncooper wrote:
Most people are pretty sure about one thing and that is that whoever is in the Whitehouse has to have a superior intellect.

ROFLMAO.
Reagan was certainly not a 'superior intellect' by any measure. I think I am right in saying, however, that he enjoyed massive approval ratings in the states.
I would also question whether anyone would define George Bush as a superior intellect (or Jimmy Carter, to keep it non-partisan).
me410
I'm living in a dictatorship, in Mexico we have not the right to vote for a candidate, our elections are prearrenged, no discuss, no votes, simply a newe dictator ever time, I ennvy your right to vote, please go to vote, at least there are a democracy to aspire for.
JessieF
me410 wrote:
I'm living in a dictatorship, in Mexico we have not the right to vote for a candidate, our elections are prearrenged, no discuss, no votes, simply a newe dictator ever time, I ennvy your right to vote, please go to vote, at least there are a democracy to aspire for.


The U.S. is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.
liljp617
JessieF wrote:
me410 wrote:
I'm living in a dictatorship, in Mexico we have not the right to vote for a candidate, our elections are prearrenged, no discuss, no votes, simply a newe dictator ever time, I ennvy your right to vote, please go to vote, at least there are a democracy to aspire for.


The U.S. is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.


Kinda both Smile
fx-trading-education
Bikerman wrote:
otncooper wrote:
Most people are pretty sure about one thing and that is that whoever is in the Whitehouse has to have a superior intellect.

ROFLMAO.
Reagan was certainly not a 'superior intellect' by any measure. I think I am right in saying, however, that he enjoyed massive approval ratings in the states.
I would also question whether anyone would define George Bush as a superior intellect (or Jimmy Carter, to keep it non-partisan).


Yes it i clear that all these guys were not "superior intellects".
What is funny is that they are all quite recent presidents.
Is it a new trend (apparently specially on the republican side) to try to get elected a president as "average" (I say average because I am very nice Very Happy ) as possible.
Maybe they are just easier to be manipulated
snowboardalliance
JessieF wrote:
me410 wrote:
I'm living in a dictatorship, in Mexico we have not the right to vote for a candidate, our elections are prearrenged, no discuss, no votes, simply a newe dictator ever time, I ennvy your right to vote, please go to vote, at least there are a democracy to aspire for.


The U.S. is not a Democracy, it's a Republic.


Ahh what I love about the choice between two rich candidates somewhere off of the middle. There's democracy.

Really, I think Obama is better but I'd like to see a more liberal third-party get some votes. Now there's change. Of course that would never happen because the majority balances out near the (political) middle.
gandalfthegrey
Thousands of dollars are spent on male presidential candidates appearances: suits, hairstylists, make-up artists.

Sarah Palin doesn't deserve all these attacks over her wardrobe expenses.
OpposableThumbs
I know the election is over. But Hilary got to where she did in part because she married into it.
liljp617
OpposableThumbs wrote:
I know the election is over. But Hilary got to where she did in part because she married into it.


It's an impossible assumption to prove, therefore it doesn't really hold any weight.
handfleisch
It's incredible that Palin and the wingnuts are now crying sexism. The rightwingers are the first to attack as "politically correct" anyone mentioning racism, but they use the same device. Palin was rejected for being dumb, mean-spirited, woefully inexperienced, inarticulate, divisive and willing to conduct the slimiest campaign in modern US presidential history, and now she's blaming "sexism". Unbelievable.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
It's incredible that Palin and the wingnuts are now crying sexism. The rightwingers are the first to attack as "politically correct" anyone mentioning racism, but they use the same device. Palin was rejected for being dumb, mean-spirited, woefully inexperienced, inarticulate, divisive and willing to conduct the slimiest campaign in modern US presidential history, and now she's blaming "sexism". Unbelievable.


You know perfectly well that had Obama lost, racism would be mentioned.
handfleisch
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
It's incredible that Palin and the wingnuts are now crying sexism. The rightwingers are the first to attack as "politically correct" anyone mentioning racism, but they use the same device. Palin was rejected for being dumb, mean-spirited, woefully inexperienced, inarticulate, divisive and willing to conduct the slimiest campaign in modern US presidential history, and now she's blaming "sexism". Unbelievable.


You know perfectly well that had Obama lost, racism would be mentioned.


Your posts are confused, my friend. Are you saying Palin screaming sexism is okay because somebody supposedly would have mentioned racism if Obama had lost? Or are you just struggling to change the subject?

My point stands, like the tip of a granite pen.

PALIN BLAMES SEXISM http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/world/palin+blames+sexism+for+clothes+row/2634822
liljp617
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
It's incredible that Palin and the wingnuts are now crying sexism. The rightwingers are the first to attack as "politically correct" anyone mentioning racism, but they use the same device. Palin was rejected for being dumb, mean-spirited, woefully inexperienced, inarticulate, divisive and willing to conduct the slimiest campaign in modern US presidential history, and now she's blaming "sexism". Unbelievable.


You know perfectly well that had Obama lost, racism would be mentioned.


As someone from Kentucky, I will say that's because racism was a hell of a lot more present than sexism.

People disliked Palin because she was a dimwit and couldn't exhibit any shred of detailed knowledge on domestic or foreign issues outside of autistic children.
ocalhoun
handfleisch wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
handfleisch wrote:
It's incredible that Palin and the wingnuts are now crying sexism. The rightwingers are the first to attack as "politically correct" anyone mentioning racism, but they use the same device. Palin was rejected for being dumb, mean-spirited, woefully inexperienced, inarticulate, divisive and willing to conduct the slimiest campaign in modern US presidential history, and now she's blaming "sexism". Unbelievable.


You know perfectly well that had Obama lost, racism would be mentioned.


Your posts are confused, my friend. Are you saying Palin screaming sexism is okay because somebody supposedly would have mentioned racism if Obama had lost? Or are you just struggling to change the subject?

I'm pointing out that both sides would do the same thing, though that doesn't make it right for either side.

1- not confused
2- not trying to change the subject; I'll leave that job up to our new president: he's very good at it ^^
Related topics
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
Did You Know... (success in Iraq)
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Global Warming
Worst Economy since Herbert Hoover
2,500 and still counting
Democrat US Senator Joe Lieberman booted for war-hawk stance
People of Iran realise that Islam is being forced on them
Hilary Clinton to be next President of U.S.
To all the people living outside of the USA...
Labour lose safe seat...
Why do Americans seem to go over the top for elections
British Columbia 2009 General Election
Throwing the hat in on the 2016 Presidential Election
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.