Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

How might one explain the hatred certain liberals direct towards powerful PROGRESSIVE women

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:18 PM
Original message
How might one explain the hatred certain liberals direct towards powerful PROGRESSIVE women
like Oprah, Martha Stewart, Hillary Clinton? It never fails... Those women are at the top of their game--some of the finest fruits of feminism. Is there a disconnect somewhere?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
madeline_con Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:21 PM
Response to Original message
1. Some women dislike some other women.
It happens. Politics often has nothing to do with it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fed_Up_Grammy Donating Member (923 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:22 PM
Response to Original message
2. Human nature and good old fashioned jealousy play a big part.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:23 PM
Response to Original message
3. that's an awfully broad brush....
No one is a saint-- all three of the women you've cited have accomplished wonderful things and deserve credit for them, but all three have also said and done things they should be held responsible for. The same is true of everyone.

Hillary Clinton stands out in your list because she is the only one running for president. No matter what their achievements, I don't think any of those particular women can lead America in the direction I'd like to see, but since Sen. Clinton is the only one trying to do that, she is likely to be especially strongly criticized for her leadership failures, and rightly so, I think.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:23 PM
Response to Reply #3
15. Good thing none of DU's sexist police are around to see your subject line tonight!
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mike_c Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. LOL-- at least I didn't inadvertently...
...leave the "r" out of "brush." :rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Manifestor_of_Light Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:24 PM
Response to Original message
4. I'm an educated woman and I don't like Hillary's politics, not the fact that she's female.
There are other reasons to dislike somebody besides their gender or their accomplishments.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:25 PM
Response to Original message
5. Martha Stewart? Progressive?
Hillary Clinton? Progressive?

Huh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DangerDave921 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:31 AM
Response to Reply #5
33. Exactly!
What a weird original post!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Maven Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:26 PM
Original message
Prominent conservative women work within the patriarchal order.
Their may gain influence but they don't threaten the status quo--in fact, they help maintain it by attacking those (feminists, GLBTs) who threaten the hetero male-dominated power structure.

Powerful progressive women subvert that power structure because they seek to dominate and don't apologize for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ecstatic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:35 PM
Response to Original message
8. hmm... That's an interesting take. Good point nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ClassWarrior Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:26 PM
Response to Original message
6. I don't see it... But any behavior of the kind you describe...
...has to have some roots in thousands of years of patriarchal society.

NGU.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
msongs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:33 PM
Response to Original message
7. since when is being convicted of felonies progressive? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Evergreen Emerald Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:34 PM
Response to Reply #7
20. I believe she was targeted for things that many male business owners do
I believe she was targeted because she is a strong powerful democratic female.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 08:57 PM
Response to Original message
9. Martha Stewart is no more a progressive than Imelda Marcos
And Hillary Clinton is not a progressive either, and neither is Nancy Pelosi. Anyone that supported torture and the loss of our civil liberties is not a progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. She's given hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Democratic party
over the years, which is probably why the Rethugs decided to make an example of her for a minor stock case. What is the basis for your certainty that she isn't a progressive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IndianaGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. So has Rupert Murdoch!
Have you forgotten Murdoch's fundraiser for Hillary? Does that make Murdoch a progressive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:28 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Having given fundraisers for candidates on both sides of the aisle, like Murdoch,
Edited on Tue Dec-11-07 09:31 PM by pnwmom
is not the same as giving large donations exclusively to the Democratic party over a lifetime, as Stewart has.

Again, what is your basis for your certainty that she is NOT a progressive?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:07 PM
Response to Original message
10. Since when is disagreement "hate?"
Why can "certain people" not be honest enough to acknowledge that the two are not synonymous?

For the record: I don't "hate" HRC. I won't vote for her, for many reasons, all expressed numerous times on other threads. That doesn't mean I "hate" her. It just means that I don't want to see her in the WH, and she hasn't earned my vote.

I don't "hate" Oprah. I don't like her or dislike her, and her political opinions don't register anywhere on my my scale of things important enough to pay attention to.

I don't have an opinion one way or another about Martha Stewart.

Why is it that "certain people" seem to think that it's a fundamental human responsibility to pass judgment on others? Are people really that shallow, that insecure, and that weak, that they cannot make up their own minds about something without grasping for group acceptance or attacking people who don't join them?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:18 PM
Response to Reply #10
12. It isn't. But there is plenty of actual hate, and plenty of misogynist comments
Edited on Tue Dec-11-07 09:19 PM by pnwmom
directed toward strong females such as HRC and Pelosi.

The worst stuff gets deleted or locked, so I'm not going to look for those examples, but there are plenty.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #12
74. Perhaps I don't see them
because I generally don't bother with those threads. The best way to "sink" something, of course.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arugula Latte Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:20 PM
Response to Original message
13. Hillary progressive? Does.Not.Compute. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mtnsnake Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:24 PM
Response to Reply #13
16. Try oiling it then. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:46 AM
Response to Reply #16
35. ah the cognitive dissonance
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #35
37. she's the Goddess of Peace
:crazy:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #37
40. oh, yeah, I forgot
now why did I forget that?

hmm.

must not be able to keep two contradictory bits of data in my head at one time. It makes me brainwash-resistant
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:25 PM
Response to Reply #13
56. Check. Her. Voting. Record.
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 12:25 PM by pnwmom
She's over 90% on progressive issues, both over the last year and throughout her time in the Senate. Kucinich, on the other hand, was a strong pro-life person until a few years ago. Biden has a less progressive overall record than HRC, but you wouldn't know that from reading DU.

www.progressivepunch.com has the voting records.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. IWR - check
Kyl/Lieberman - check

going after video games - check

she did vote against moveon.org, so that's a plus. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:33 PM
Response to Reply #58
70. She voted for Kyl/Lieberman after it was gutted to meet the concerns
of progressives.

Anyone can always single out particular votes, but her overall record puts her strongly on the progressive side.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Dec-11-07 09:31 PM
Response to Original message
19. Don't forget Madonna....who is being panned right now, right here on DU
Edited on Tue Dec-11-07 09:33 PM by FrenchieCat
for daring to have said that she supports Hillary Clinton.

Imagine that. Powerful secure women who use fame and connections to advance their political cause are knocked down just cause they don't choose who we have decided they should choose.

I believe that there are many of us who are guilty of judging these folks, and if that's what's happening, we need to grow up. Perhaps some are jealous that they are sitting at their desk commanding their keyboard instead of commanding top dollars to be seen on stage or whatever else some of these women are doing. Whatever reason is for this stupid hatred of everyone whose opinion differs from our own, it is nothing more than childish and a total time waster.

I hope Caroline Kennedy doesn't jump into the fray! I like her very much, and would hate to have to watch her getting trashed simply because she holds an opinion and voices it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:11 AM
Response to Reply #19
27. One Of Our Fellow DUers Called Madonna A "Skank"
Misogyny raises it ugly head; even at DU...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:20 AM
Response to Reply #27
28. I think some of it (some)
is just politically motivated. The rest must be ignorance, and freeperishness.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #27
48. the fellow DUer sounds like a paid disruptor
nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Andromeda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #48
75. How many are here?
I think there are many paid disruptor's here at DU. They try to blend right in but they give themselves away by their consistent vitriol at one or more of our candidates.

Hillary seems to be the main target for the vitriol which is way out of proportion to all reason. Hatred originally generated toward Hillary began during events leading up to Bill Clinton's impeachment. All of the maliciousness directed at Bill also affected Hillary and thus the smear campaign against the Clintons was launched----by right-wing operatives.

There really was a right-wing conspiracy. Read "The Hunting of the President", by Joe Conoson and Gene Lyons.

All DUers who accuse Hillary of being "manipulative, untrustworthy, and untruthful" are just regurgitating Republicans talking-points. This perception of Hillary was born in smoke-filled Republican back rooms with the express purpose of destroying both Clintons in order to make them politically irrelevant.

The far-left wing of the Democratic party never liked the Clintons and that hasn't changed. The thing that really bothers me is that DU is such a fertile ground for people who use the same harsh rhetoric as the evangelical, radical wing of the Republican party.

If you didn't go through the impeachment hearings and watch the media every single day as they ripped the Clintons apart you don't know scary.

I see scary right here on DU and it makes me ill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
booley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 01:08 AM
Response to Original message
21. Before I answer your question, please answer mine..
Why is that when some here don't like someone's position who happens to be a woman, they get accused of misogyny?

Maybe my issues with Hillary have nothing to do with her having two X chromosomes? Maybe I don't like her blatant political shilling and trying to mislead about her support for the war.

Maybe I am actually judging her as a PERSON and found her still wanting.

Why is that never considered by you "good" folks?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 01:15 AM
Response to Original message
22. Calling someone progressive doesn't make them progressive...
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 01:18 AM by calipendence
You need to explain HOW they are progressive. There are many of us who don't see how someone who pals it up with the likes of Rupert Murdoch and other corporations in record fashion is "progressive".

I don't hate Hillary personally, but I don't have time at all for someone that wants to continue the status quo of enabling the corporatocracy we have in place now that is destroying our middle class.

I have nothing against supporting a woman for this office. Give me someone like Barbara Boxer and I'd be jumping to go out and campaign for her. Just like you probably wouldn't campaign for Condi Rice because she is a black woman, I'm not going to campaign for Hillary because she is a woman, nor will I necessarily campaign for Obama who's a black man just for those traits. I want SUBSTANCE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pnwmom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #22
57. HRC's voting record in the Senate puts her among the most progressive
members, as she has consistently voted more than 90% of the time for the progressive position on issues.

www.progressivepunch.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cascadiance Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 03:09 PM
Response to Reply #57
67. I guess that's why she and Rupert Murdoch are such good pals!
Maybe he should also pal up with George Soros too!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dr Fate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 01:16 AM
Response to Original message
23. I like Oprah and Martha Stewart. n/t
n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jgraz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 01:30 AM
Response to Original message
24. SO many problems with that statement
1) You postulate "hatred" from "certain liberals". Where is your evidence of "hatred" (as opposed to outrage or disgust)?

2) How have you determined that the women you mentioned are progressive? Both Martha Stewart and Hillary Clinton have highly questionable records as progressives.

3) How do you support the assertion of a causal relationship between their gender and criticism? Have you seen "certain liberals" directing criticism exclusively at women? Do you have some independent confirmation that "certain liberals" have some sort of problem with powerful, (allegedly) progressive women?

4) Just who are these "certain liberals" that you refer to?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 01:44 AM
Response to Original message
25. Defending the privileges of the One Percenters isn't progressive
--it isn't even really feminist either. If you think that a world divided into a small ruling class living in privilege behind high walls and everyone else is peachy-keen as long as half the people on the rich side of the wall are female, 10% black, 10% LGBT, etc., don't expect me to join in the cheering.

Of course there is the misogynistic view on the part of some non-One Percenters that raping The Man's wife or daughter is a blow against the privilege of the Man, and that's bullshit too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bowens43 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 05:22 AM
Response to Original message
26. Hillary progressive?!?! She's a conservative.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #26
29. You really made a case there
I'm convinced. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:27 AM
Response to Reply #29
30. I think it's called ipse dixit
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:13 AM
Response to Reply #29
41. ok, why don't you convince us why she is not?
I'm sure you have ample evidence of why she's anti-war and pro impeachment and pro investigati...er....wait. no you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:33 AM
Response to Reply #41
45. c'mon LF
didn't you see the polls posted below? there's like a dozen of them showing that people believe she's a liberal. can't argue with polls.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #45
46. d'oh! gosh you're right.
silly, silly me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. thats a strawman you just put up nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:41 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. um, don't think so. just reversing your own request back at you
unless of course YOUR request was a strawman....

naw, couldn't be.

and, like ALWAYS, no HRC supporter will EVER answer a direct question, instead they ALWAYS attack the questioner instead.

good on ya, yer predictable.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:03 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. Simply put
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 12:04 PM by Jim4Wes
I do not agree with your criteria for a "progressive" not one running for national office anyways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:46 PM
Response to Reply #55
60. and I certainly don't agree with yours
so then, we disagree.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. So to summarize this discussion
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 12:56 PM by Jim4Wes
If a candidate for President is not publicly for impeachment of Bush
and publicly anti-war (that pretty much means all wars)

then he/she is not progressive.

I left off pro-investigation becasue it can be shown she was for investigations of BushCo. I also included "publicly" because its a fact that candidates have to sometimes mute their natural voice when speaking as a candidate or elected official that must actually accomplish things in government.

Lastly, you failed to point out any candidate for President that is viable that meets your criteria.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 02:32 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. well, last first
that's the first someone asked me, so my answer is that the most progressive candidate is Kucinich, hands down.
Clinton is not progressive.

and you know what, your summation, even though perhaps proffered in sarcasm, is pretty much correct in my view.

so we've achieved communication! wonderful!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BootinUp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. Thanks
although we could continue to debate who or what makes a progressive I will pretty much leave it there. How to achieve progressive goals is the real question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
depakid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
31. Seems to me you might want to re-examine the premise
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 07:04 AM by depakid
At the very least CAPS aren't in order.

Want to see a real progressive woman- one who's cool under fire and won't sell people down the river when it seems convenient or expedient?

Have a look at Julia Gillard.

Acting PM of Australia.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/01/11/gillard_narrowweb__300x321,0.jpg

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

None of the women mentioned in the OP remotely shines a candle to her.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sendero Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:06 AM
Response to Original message
32. I don't have a problem with any....
... of them. But NONE of them fit my definition of progressive and as long as HRC is not the president I like her just fine.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:46 AM
Response to Original message
34. you should not confuse
dislike of actions or policies as dislike of women.

not that I"ll be able to stop you from doing so.

just because I don't like what Bush is doing doesn't mean I have something against men. Unless my objections are gender-oriented, trying to make them seem so is reaching, and pathetically so.

for the record, I like Oprah's show, I think Martha was railroaded into jail, and I vehemently dislike Clinton's policies but I have no opinion on her personally.

does that help clear things up?

you're welcome.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 07:56 AM
Response to Original message
36. Proggresive? please remove Hillary from that statement
good framing otherwise to skew responses. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Perry Logan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:45 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama
The following are polls from progressive groups, rating Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, on how often they vote for progressive issues. For each group, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

Clinton Vs. Barack Obama (progressivepunch)
Overall Progressive Score: 92% 90%
Aid to Less Advantaged People at Home and Abroad: 98% 97%
Corporate Subsidies 100% N/A
Education, Humanities and the Arts 88% 100%
Environment 92% 100%
Fair Taxation 97% 100%
Family Planning 88% 80%
Government Checks on Corporate Power 95% 97%
Healthcare 98% 94%
Housing 100% 100%
Human Rights & Civil Liberties 82% 77%
Justice for All: Civil and Criminal 94% 91%
Labor Rights 91% 91%
Making Government Work for Everyone, Not Just the Rich or Powerful 94% 90%
War and Peace 80% 86%
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sniffa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. good to see more polls
i expect no less from Lil Dog's supporters. :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #39
42. except, of course, for the current polls in Iowa
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
maxanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:22 AM
Response to Original message
43. this is neatly framed
to guarantee a predictable result.

I don't support Hillary Clinton - and it has nothing to do with her gender. I'm really becoming annoyed
by those who insist I must support her because I'm a woman.

I have a vagina. Hillary has a vagina. I should vote for her because of that?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:23 AM
Response to Reply #43
44. the only acceptable response is to bow down before her
unless you do that, you're a woman hater.

bizarre.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #43
52. YES!


:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Marnieworld Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:01 AM
Response to Original message
47. 2 out of 3 of those I personally like- not Hillary
But I don't call any of them Progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lerkfish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:42 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. excellent point
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sakabatou Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
53. It's not their gender, or whether they're powerful
It's the way they vote and their stances on issues. Now...

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughBeaumont Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 11:57 AM
Response to Original message
54. Hillary Clinton's a progressive?
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 11:58 AM by HughBeaumont
Gee, that's news to me. She voted FOR the IWR, voted FOR Kyl/Lieberman . .. do progressives believe what is about to be the worst president America has ever had? She supports STILL-Big-insurance controlled health care. She supports free trade, job offshoring, increasing the already sizeable quota of h1b and L1 visas and Indian Outsourcing companies; she voted for the 2001 Bankruptcy bill . . . do progressives suggest that destroying one middle class to lift another overseas while screwing both and lining the pockets of the wealthy is a positive part of American economic growth?

Has nothing to do with gender. It's her stenchy rhetoric, corporate pandering and triangulating demeanor that we can't stand.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #54
78. Great post, Hugh! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
59. Does it matter if you hate the protection of secrecy and privilege of BushInc,
even if that person siding with closed government is a man or woman?

Does that aspect ever get considered?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
63. I think those three are all hated by different people. The HRC supporters are bashing Oprah,
Edited on Wed Dec-12-07 02:33 PM by Occam Bandage
the Obama supporters are defending Oprah and bashing Clinton, the centrists are bashing Sheehand, the lefties are bashing Pelosi and Clinton.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
xxqqqzme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
64. progressive is not the word that springs to mind
when I hear those 3 names - powerful, maybe, but certainly not progressive. I have seen no demonstation of progressive action from any of those named.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mod mom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 02:59 PM
Response to Original message
65. I only take issue with one of those listed, and the issue is CORPORATISM!
Put up a woman candidate like Barbara Boxer, or Barbara Lee and count me in. Instead we get labeled as being against powerful women when issues like FREE TRADE AND THE KYL/LIEBERMANN VOTE are front and center. Hillary has surrounded her campaign with the likes of Mark Penn:

Isn't it Time for Mark Penn to Leave Burson-Marsteller?
Posted November 12, 2007 | 11:18 AM (EST)


My colleague at The Nation, Ari Berman, has done more than any journalist to shine some light on how pollster-strategist Mark Penn, head honcho at PR giant Burson-Marsteller, and perhaps the most important figure in Hillary Clinton's campaign, poses a real dilemma for the candidate. Penn heads a firm that has represented everyone from union busters to big tobacco, and more recently Blackwater. (According to a Marsteller spokesperson, it was a subsidiary, BKSH & Associates, run by GOP operative Charlie Black, which helped Erik Prince prepare for congressional hearings after his employees killed civilians in Iraq).It would seem difficult to find a more controversial client than Blackwater but Penn's firm has just been retained by Spin Master.

Who is Spin Master? It turns out that Spin Master distributes Aqua Dots, a toy that was recalled last week because it contains a glue ingredient that when ingested is broken down by the body to make GHB, the "date rape" drug, which can cause unconsciousness and even death. (The Consumer Product Safety Commission says the number of children sickened by Aqua Dots has risen from two to nine in the past week.)

Penn has repeatedly stated that he has no direct contact with controversial clients like Blackwater or unionbusters. But what about the good old-fashioned American principles of responsibility and accountability -- principles which his candidate likes to invoke on the campaign trail? As Ari Berman has pointed out, the dilemma for Clinton is that Penn's firm represents many of the interests whose influence she has vowed to curtail. But as kids get sick from poisonous toys, how can Clinton keep in her corner, as her chief strategist, a man who has even limited involvement with a firm like Burson-Marsteller? Isn't it time that Clinton ask Penn to choose: my campaign to make this a safer country or a PR firm which has too many clients undermining that agenda?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katrina-vanden-heuvel/isnt-it-time-for-mark-pe_b_72206.html

"In '06, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57% of Campaign Contrib to GOP"



Polling Czar



After the 1994 election, Democrats had just lost both houses of Congress, and President Clinton was floundering in the polls. At the urging of his wife, he turned to Dick Morris, a friend from their time in Arkansas. Morris brought in two pollsters from New York, Doug Schoen and his partner, Mark Penn, a portly, combative workaholic. Morris decided what to poll and Penn polled it. They immediately pushed Clinton to the right, enacting the now-infamous strategy of "triangulation," which co-opted Republican policies like welfare reform and tax cuts and emphasized small-bore issues that supposedly cut across the ideological divide. "They were the ones who said, 'Make the '96 election about nothing except V-chips and school uniforms,'" says a former adviser to Bill. When Morris got caught with a call girl, Penn became the most important adviser in Clinton's second term. "In a White House where polling is virtually a religion," the Washington Post reported in 1996, "Penn is the high priest."

Penn, who had previously worked in the business world for companies like Texaco and Eli Lilly, brought his corporate ideology to the White House. After moving to Washington he aggressively expanded his polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland (PSB). It was said that Penn was the only person who could get Bill Clinton and Bill Gates on the same line. Penn's largest client was Microsoft, and he saw no contradiction between working for both the plaintiff and the defense in what was at the time the country's largest antitrust case. A variety of controversial clients enlisted PSB. The firm defended Procter & Gamble's Olestra from charges that the food additive caused anal leakage, blamed Texaco's bankruptcy on greedy jurors and market-tested genetically modified foods for Monsanto. PSB introduced to consulting the concept of "inoculation": shielding corporations from scandal through clever advertising and marketing.

In 2000 Penn became the chief architect of Hillary's Senate victory in New York, persuading her, in a rerun of '96, to eschew big themes and relentlessly focus on poll-tested pothole politics, such as suburban transit lines and dairy farming upstate. Following that election, Penn became a very rich man--and an even more valued commodity in the business world (Hillary paid him $1 million for her re-election campaign in '06 and $277,000 in the first quarter of this year). The massive PR empire WPP Group acquired Penn's polling firm for an undisclosed sum in 2001 and four years later named him worldwide CEO of one of its most prized properties, the PR firm Burson-Marsteller (B-M). A key player in the decision to hire Penn was Howard Paster, President Clinton's chief lobbyist to Capitol Hill and an influential presence inside WPP. "Clients of stature come to Mark constantly for counsel," says Paster, who informally advises Hillary, explaining the hire. The press release announcing Penn's promotion noted his work "developing and implementing deregulation informational programs for the electric utilities industry and in the financial services sector." The release blithely ignored how utility deregulation contributed to the California electricity crisis manipulated by Enron and the blackout of 2003, which darkened much of the Northeast and upper Midwest.

Burson-Marsteller is hardly a natural fit for a prominent Democrat. The firm has represented everyone from the Argentine military junta to Union Carbide after the 1984 Bhopal disaster in India, in which thousands were killed when toxic fumes were released by one of its plants, to Royal Dutch Shell, which has been accused of colluding with the Nigerian government in committing major human rights violations. B-M pioneered the use of pseudo-grassroots front groups, known as "astroturfing," to wage stealth corporate attacks against environmental and consumer groups. It set up the National Smokers Alliance on behalf of Philip Morris to fight tobacco regulation in the early 1990s. Its current clients include major players in the finance, pharmaceutical and energy industries. In 2006, with Penn at the helm, the company gave 57 percent of its campaign contributions to Republican candidates.

-snip
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

HOWARD WOLFSON:

A bevy of current and former Hillary advisers, including her communications guru, Howard Wolfson, are linked to a prominent lobbying and PR firm--the Glover Park Group--that has cozied up to the pharmaceutical industry and Rupert Murdoch.

-SNIP

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070604/berman

WILL MARSHALL:

In the introduction to the 2006 book With All Our Might: A Progressive Strategy for Defeating Jihadism and Defending Liberty, editor Will Marshall, president of the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), promotes what he calls “progressive internationalism” as opposed to the “conservative unilateralism” of the George W. Bush administration. He argues that the Iraq War is part of a larger strategy for “building a world safe for individual liberty and democracy,” and that the “Bush Republicans have been tough but they have not been smart” in directing the course of the war in Iraq. Part of being smart is “using our strengths,” says Marshall. “Democrats must be committed to preserving America's military predominance, because a strong military undergirds U.S. global leadership.”

-snip

A core member of a neoconservative-like vanguard within the Democratic Party establishment, Marshall has been instrumental in creating organizations that have worked to move the party to the right on everything from foreign to economic policies. With Al From, in 1985 Marshall cofounded the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), an important bastion of center-right Democrats that was once chaired by Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT). In 1989, Marshall founded the PPI, a think tank that is affiliated with the DLC. Marshall and From were both staffers for Rep. Gillis Long (D-LA), who was the chairman of the House Democratic Party Caucus in the early 1980s. Marshall served as Long's speechwriter and policy analyst and was also senior editor of the 1984 House Democratic Caucus policy blueprint, “Renewing America's Promise.”

-snip

Marshall was one of 15 analysts who co-wrote the PPI's October 2003 foreign policy blueprint, “Progressive Internationalism: A Democratic National Security Strategy.” Using language that closely mirrors that of the neoconservative-led Project for the New American Century (PNAC), the PPI hailed the “tough-minded internationalism” of past Democratic presidents such as Harry Truman. Like PNAC, which in its founding statement warned of grave present dangers confronting America, the PPI strategy declared that, “Today America is threatened once again” and is in need of assertive individuals committed to strong leadership. The authors' observation that, “like the Cold War, the struggle we face today is likely to last not years but decades,” echoes both neoconservative and Bush administration national security assessments. As the “Progressive Internationalism” authors explain, the PPI endorsed the invasion of Iraq “because the previous policy of containment was failing, because Saddam posed a grave danger to America as well as to his own brutalized people, and because his blatant defiance of more than a decade's worth of UN Security Council resolutions was undermining both collective security and international law.”



http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1295

AND JAMES CARVILLE:

Did Carville Tip Bush Off to Kerry Strategy (Woodward)


By M.J. Rosenberg | bio




On page 344, Woodward describes the doings at the White House in the early morning hours of Wednesday, the day after the '04 election.

Apparently, Kerry had decided not to concede. There were 250,000 outstanding ballots in Ohio.

So Kerry decides to fight. In fact, he considers going to Ohio to camp out with his voters until there is a recount. This is the last thing the White House needs, especially after Florida 2000.

-snip

"Carville told her he had some inside news. The Kerry campaign was going to challenge the provisional ballots in Ohio -- perhaps up to 250,000 of them. 'I don't agree with it, Carville said. I'm just telling you that's what they're talking about.'

-snip

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward

AND YOU WONDER WHY WELL EDUCATED LIBERAL WOMAN ARE TURNING AGAINST HILLARY!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LeftyMom Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 03:11 PM
Response to Original message
68. Oprah's an attention whore with no substance, and Hillary's about as progressive as my small toe.
That's what's up with that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elana i am Donating Member (626 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 03:16 PM
Response to Original message
69. definitely a disconnect...
i wouldn't call any of them progressive. i might call oprah a feminist and maybe even call her fairly liberal, but i wouldn't call any of them progressive. i don't expect any of them would vote against their own self interest if a truly progressive candidate ever did become viable and get nominated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
readmoreoften Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:48 PM
Response to Original message
71. How on earth can you call Oprah and Martha Stewart "progressive"?
And Clinton herself is pretty middle of the road. Just because they're women doesn't mean they're progressive for fucks sake.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ellisonz Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:50 PM
Response to Original message
72. Nancy Pelosi
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Cha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 06:57 PM
Response to Original message
73. This premise is so bogus..
I hope no one is letting you get away with this. What do they call this? A red herriing?

I have not seen any evidence of your statement, whatsoever.

I call bullshit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lastliberalintexas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 09:44 PM
Response to Original message
76. Yes, the hatred of Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Sheila
Jackson Lee, Susan Sarandon and Pat Schroeder is quite palpable on this site. :eyes:


Perhaps it's because the women you've used as examples of progressive women only meet half the criteria?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
antigop Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-12-07 10:33 PM
Response to Original message
77. Hillary a progressive? NOT! A progressive would support US workers and jobs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhLBSLLIhUs
Hillary pushes for more h1-b visas and outsourcing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLNOSGM2jK4
Lou Dobbs: Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgdrh2Bc95M
Lou Dobbs: Hillary Clinton's hypocrisy (part 2)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 07:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC