Gender specific words, standards and double standards...what's acceptable dialog?

[lenny]

Since there are several Clinton supporters here, I'd be interested in identifying or better defining what constitutes crossing the line when it comes to making a sexist remark or debasing a female candidate in a gender specific way. It seems that with Obama, the whole race thing is more of a non-issue so far, and that by comparison the gender issue is constantly front and center.

For example, JimV uses the word "hag" to describe Clinton. "Hag" is a gender specific noun, and it seems to me that whenever a more gender specific word is applied to Clinton, it's held up as an example of sexism. Obviously, JimV isn't the best example, being that he's a Bush supporter and all, but if a female Obama supporter and Clinton hater (of course they exist) were to refer to Hillary as a "hag", I wouldn't expect it to be held up as an example of sexism. It's just a word. You could also replace "hag" with "bitch" and have the same effect.

Another one that comes to mind, that is sort of gender-specific is the word "shrill." I was with my mother a few weeks back and someone on the television said something about her voice being shrill and my mother screamed bloody sexism. Can Hillary Clinton's voice be perceived as "shrill" by a man without that man being sexist? For example, I find feminism to be interesting, I own and have read feminist authors, support equal rights for women and in general the feminist movement, think a woman President is overdue, but I think that shrill is a perfect adjective to describe how millions of people perceive Hillary's voice --including myself. Shouldn't I be able to use the English language without being attacked for sexism? If a word is applicable and apropos, but happens to be gender specific, should I not be able to apply it without being shouted down by an angry mob of T.V. watchers?

Like racism, sexism is a pretty serious charge, and one that should be backed up with considerable evidence. Keep in mind that as far as historical perspective and being able to understand the women's rights struggle and how we got to where we are today, I'm not at all in the dark. So with that in mind, I don't understand why the gender card is being played so hard in the primaries. I've said it before and I'll say it again, the only significant role that gender will have in the Democratic primary will be to the benefit of Hillary Clinton. The type of people who would not vote for a woman simply for trivial sexist reasons generally vote Republican anyway, and conversely, the number of women who will vote for Clinton based on gender will far outnumber the male sexist vote of the Democratic party.

I think that the media has (of course) taken the gender issue too far and is forcing it on us too early. Perhaps it can be said that such things create a rift and will in the end simply result in more sexist behavior on the part of the public. Spending a small amount of time on Obama's skin color, and Clinton's gender is fine with me simply because of it's historical significance. I'm alright with a bit of intelligent discourse on the topic, but the stupid media turns everything into a circus. I don't know how you people can stand to watch it.

Any thoughts on the usage of gender specific terms, the media's role in it all, sexism, and that sort of thing would be much appreciated, but I'd prefer it if in this thread we could avoid mentioning Bush, and/or otherwise turning the discussion into another big Dems vs. big Repub clash. Since that seems to be going on in every single other thread, I figured maybe we could keep it off of this one.


_____________________

[GUS]

Obviously you have not been listening to Chris Mathews or any of those MSNBC or CNN pundits who are constantly attacking Bill Clinton for an assortment of sundry things that are BLACK this BLACK that Jessie Jackson Black black. I tune it out as I do the female stuff which is not important. Since Hillary is not of menopause age or affected with runaway hormones as younger women and most men of all ages are I do not worry about the sexual aspects. I have tried to equalize the sexist drivel by referring to the bald, ugly Republican candidates who divorce their wives and marry ladies younger than their children. I will bet most of those men cannot "do" those ladies but depend on the Monica treatment.

Since men have ruled the world forever it is very difficult to insult any of them. There are very few characteristic negative words for men. Bitch, Hag are for woman, what are the like word for a man? Stud, Son of a Bitch? As to the word shrill, that could be a characteristic of men although blow hard would be more male sex-likely. Most men do not base their personal value on their looks so hideous men like Carl Rove can achieve inspite of the fact that the ugly stick really did a job on him. Listen to the comments made about overweight or ugly entertainment personalities and you will see they are most likely directed at women. Look at McCain's distorted face but who would comment on his cancer scars? Tony Soprano never had his gut ridiculed.

I realize that everyone has their favorite candidates, their favorite party but I have trouble understanding what all this year after year hatred of Hillary is about. I have been curious enough to ask and can get little response of anything Hillary has ever done politically or personally to engender such wrath. Many men join with Rush in hating her because as he says she is a FEMANAZI because she is bright, determined and eager to advance beyond being a senator. Sure some do not like how she looks or dresses but how superficial that is. Numerous people find her terrible because she stayed with Bill after the Monica impeachment attempts. Some think that inspite of the government spending $40 million trying to uncover some crooked actions on her part or Bill's part that their evil is hidding with those pesky WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The lower the IQ the more vitriolic the Hillary Hatred seems to reach.

The gender/race card is a construct of the press and grasped by those who need something to hold onto. I hope Hillary or Obama win, it is about time someone other than a white man rules this nation.

[McGyver]

Boy Lenny, I'm not sure what you're reading or watching, but apparently it is something very different than I am reading or watching.

I start out with Morning Joe on MSNBC...and then there's Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann, in between that I read the NY Times, and The Washington Post Online.

RACE is definitely an issue in this Presidential Nominee fight. Not sure who made it one, but if I were to guess, I would have to say "the Media!" They love a good fight, and they especially love it when they can make Race, Gender or Sex the motive.

Lenny, just take a look at the comments on this forum by JimV. He has made several disparaging remarks about Senator Clinton's appearance as well as Speaker Pelosi's appearance. Have you seen or heard JimV make ANY comment about ANY of the Male Politicians' appearance? NOPE, and you won't! ONLY female politicians are "fair game" to use their looks or their clothes or their hairstyle or their aging appearance against them. Hell, John McCain is 20 years older than Senator Clinton, and yet JimV or You, or any other person on this forum has yet to mention how "old" John McCain looks. So then, WHY should anyone mention how Senator Clinton looks? It is totally irrelavent, and has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to run this country. And therefore, in my opinion, ANY reference to how a Candidate looks, or what they wear or how they're having a "bad hair day" is Crossing the Line, In my opinion! It is "belittling" in my opinion, and that is exactly why they do it. They try to diminish Senator Clinton to "Little Woman" status, and they all know, the little woman, belongs in the Kitchen, not The White House!

Lenny, both of these candidates are excellent representatives of The American People. BOTH have chosen to "put themselves out there" in an effort to Protect and Serve The American People. And running for President is no easy task, especially if you are a woman or a minority, since this has never happened before. Therefore, in my opinion, both of these people should be treated with the respect they have both earned and deserve. And being called an "Old Shrill Hag" is not my idea of respect.

If you don't like her politics, then by all means "have at it." But to resort to bullshit like "she looks like an old hag" is juvenile at best, rude and ignorant at worst, and I immediately "discount" the purveyor of such drivel as "ignorant and uneducated." Since if that is the "best" they can do, then she must be Pretty Damn Good!

[JIMV]

On the contrary, I have consistently called Kennedy an old drunk and lech. I have called Bill C about every non profane name in the book. I have called Biden 'Babling Biden' with great regularity. I have not taken any shots at Obama as he simply does not have any characteristics to harpoon him on yet. I have called Jesse Jackson and Sharpton 'race baiters' and 'scam artists' with regularity and Edwards a 'shyster lawyer' at every opportunity. I have called Kucinich a nut and Paul a few decades past his sell by date.

I have noted Hillary's propensity to rely on her gender for protection from those evil mean spirited men who remark on her utter lack of character and qualification. If she wants to play she should play with the same rules as men, not a special kid glove set of make nice rules and she cannot hide bend her gender when her attack dogs do her dirty work, including Bill.

See I figure if folk can call Bush every name and imply every bit of imagined misconduct in the book, I can take equal wacks at the lefts paragons of virtue.

[lenny]

Obviously you have not been listening to Chris Mathews or any of those MSNBC or CNN pundits who are constantly attacking Bill Clinton for an assortment of sundry things that are BLACK this BLACK that Jessie Jackson Black black. I tune it out as I do the female stuff which is not important. Since Hillary is not of menopause age or affected with runaway hormones as younger women and most men of all ages are I do not worry about the sexual aspects. I have tried to equalize the sexist drivel by referring to the bald, ugly Republican candidates who divorce their wives and marry ladies younger than their children. I will bet most of those men cannot "do" those ladies but depend on the Monica treatment.

Your observation is correct. I do watch television occasionally, but my time spent there is minimal and mainly consists of The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, Jeopardy, and an occasional view of something else. So with regards to things like Stewart/Colbert they spend a lot of time making fun of what Mathews and the other pundits are saying, so I do see quite a few clips of their idiocy. I'm of the opinion that the T.V. makes most people stupid and un/mis-informed, but you can't deny its power over our everyday lives and in molding public discourse and opinion.

As far as the rest of the paragraph above, am I correct in observing that you prefer to fight what you percieve as sexism with sexism?

Since men have ruled the world forever it is very difficult to insult any of them. There are very few characteristic negative words for men. Bitch, Hag are for woman, what are the like word for a man? Stud, Son of a Bitch? As to the word shrill, that could be a characteristic of men although blow hard would be more male sex-likely. Most men do not base their personal value on their looks so hideous men like Carl Rove can achieve inspite of the fact that the ugly stick really did a job on him. Listen to the comments made about overweight or ugly entertainment personalities and you will see they are most likely directed at women. Look at McCain's distorted face but who would comment on his cancer scars? Tony Soprano never had his gut ridiculed.

I'm not sure that men have really ruled the world forever, as I'm one who believes that human history is actually a million or two years old as opposed to 8-10 thousand, but I understand that with regards to the history of "civilization" men have dominated. That's why I wanted to emphasize in my original post that I understand the history of the womens movement. It's not hard to understand why we are where we are today. I'm interested in moving beyond it, and I recognize that in order for that to happen, it needs to be acknowledged that sexism is a two-way street.

I honestly believe that the fact that there are different standards being employed to various degrees with regards to the appearance, personalities, and mannerisms of the male and female candidates is inevitable and doesn't always indicate sexism. Male candidates are being judged and scrutinized by the mainstream press on their looks, their delivery and everything else. Just look at Kucinich and how his looks are treated. Gore was a Robot. I've seen distasteful jokes made about McCain's cancer scars. Obama has ears that stick out, etc. Ever hear what right-wingers say when describing Michael Moore? Ever hear someone on the left describe what Rush Limbaugh looks like? I'd say that as much time is spent on Tony Soprano's weight as is spent on Queen Latifa's -- and by that I mean its not important.

I realize that everyone has their favorite candidates, their favorite party but I have trouble understanding what all this year after year hatred of Hillary is about. I have been curious enough to ask and can get little response of anything Hillary has ever done politically or personally to engender such wrath. Many men join with Rush in hating her because as he says she is a FEMANAZI because she is bright, determined and eager to advance beyond being a senator. Sure some do not like how she looks or dresses but how superficial that is. Numerous people find her terrible because she stayed with Bill after the Monica impeachment attempts. Some think that inspite of the government spending $40 million trying to uncover some crooked actions on her part or Bill's part that their evil is hidding with those pesky WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. The lower the IQ the more vitriolic the Hillary Hatred seems to reach.

You completely miscaricterize the issue with regards to the hate of Hillary and where I'd like this dialog to go. There are men, mostly right-wing Republicans and/or religious types, who are sexist pigs through and through. They hate Hillary for a whole variety of reasons including their own inexcusable sexism. I don't want to talk about them. At all.

I hate the Clintons. I voted for Bill in 1996 when I was 20 years old. I didn't hate the Clintons until 1999(ish) when I started to put aside party loyalty and all the hype of the Clinton years and judge them for their behavior and the effectivness (and effects) of some of their policies (NAFTA, welfare reform, 3 strikes, enviornmental policy from the Clinton administration, etc). To put it in general terms, they are representative of all the things I hate about our bought and paid for politicians and our broken political system in general (lobbyists, corporate interest/control, negative/hostile type campaigning, poll-driven decision making, speaking in slogans and phony folksy type voice, money money money, etc). As far as Hillary and specifics, in terms of politically I'd start with things like the Iraq war and the Patriot acts and her support for them. If you have asked and never heard of anything Hillary has done to engender the wrath of people on the left (there are millions of us both male and female) then at this point I think it's safe to say that you never will.

The gender/race card is a construct of the press and grasped by those who need something to hold onto. I hope Hillary or Obama win, it is about time someone other than a white man rules this nation.

It could just be that we see the world in such a fundamentally different way, have such an incredibly different idea of what constitutes "reality" so as to make communication between us almost impossible, but I can't read the statement above without gawking over how profoundly contradictory it is.

[JIMV]

The gender/race card is a construct of the press and grasped by those who need something to hold onto. I hope Hillary or Obama win, it is about time someone other than a white man rules this nation.

Shouldn't the quality of the candidate matter more the color or gender?

[lenny]

Boy Lenny, I'm not sure what you're reading or watching, but apparently it is something very different than I am reading or watching.

I start out with Morning Joe on MSNBC...and then there's Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann, in between that I read the NY Times, and The Washington Post Online.

RACE is definitely an issue in this Presidential Nominee fight. Not sure who made it one, but if I were to guess, I would have to say "the Media!" They love a good fight, and they especially love it when they can make Race, Gender or Sex the motive.

Lenny, just take a look at the comments on this forum by JimV. He has made several disparaging remarks about Senator Clinton's appearance as well as Speaker Pelosi's appearance. Have you seen or heard JimV make ANY comment about ANY of the Male Politicians' appearance? NOPE, and you won't! ONLY female politicians are "fair game" to use their looks or their clothes or their hairstyle or their aging appearance against them. Hell, John McCain is 20 years older than Senator Clinton, and yet JimV or You, or any other person on this forum has yet to mention how "old" John McCain looks. So then, WHY should anyone mention how Senator Clinton looks? It is totally irrelavent, and has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to run this country. And therefore, in my opinion, ANY reference to how a Candidate looks, or what they wear or how they're having a "bad hair day" is Crossing the Line, In my opinion! It is "belittling" in my opinion, and that is exactly why they do it. They try to diminish Senator Clinton to "Little Woman" status, and they all know, the little woman, belongs in the Kitchen, not The White House!

Lenny, both of these candidates are excellent representatives of The American People. BOTH have chosen to "put themselves out there" in an effort to Protect and Serve The American People. And running for President is no easy task, especially if you are a woman or a minority, since this has never happened before. Therefore, in my opinion, both of these people should be treated with the respect they have both earned and deserve. And being called an "Old Shrill Hag" is not my idea of respect.

If you don't like her politics, then by all means "have at it." But to resort to bullshit like "she looks like an old hag" is juvenile at best, rude and ignorant at worst, and I immediately "discount" the purveyor of such drivel as "ignorant and uneducated." Since if that is the "best" they can do, then she must be Pretty Damn Good!

O.K., I'm going to run short of time, so if I can I'll address more later, but just to be clear, I don't think I've ever made any reference to the looks of the various candidates (maybe with the exception of joking that Huckabee's familiy portrait that I linked to a while back made him look like some corn-pone cracker...ouch :o), or indicated that it's of any importance to me.

What you list for daily media dose is exactly what I avoid at all costs.

Crap, I gotta go now.......

Bye.

[lenny]

On the contrary, I have consistently called Kennedy an old drunk and lech. I have called Bill C about every non profane name in the book. I have called Biden 'Babling Biden' with great regularity. I have not taken any shots at Obama as he simply does not have any characteristics to harpoon him on yet. I have called Jesse Jackson and Sharpton 'race baiters' and 'scam artists' with regularity and Edwards a 'shyster lawyer' at every opportunity. I have called Kucinich a nut and Paul a few decades past his sell by date.

I have noted Hillary's propensity to rely on her gender for protection from those evil mean spirited men who remark on her utter lack of character and qualification. If she wants to play she should play with the same rules as men, not a special kid glove set of make nice rules and she cannot hide bend her gender when her attack dogs do her dirty work, including Bill.

See I figure if folk can call Bush every name and imply every bit of imagined misconduct in the book, I can take equal wacks at the lefts paragons of virtue.

Jim makes some good points here that can be addressed in manner that doesn't require bringing up Bush or turning this into another Dem vs. Repub crapper...

[JIMV]

My point is simple. Politics is a blood sport. Hillary's use of her gnder to avoid arguments she cannot win is no more legit the a mans excluding her from that debate based on her gender.

If she cannot play by the same rules as everyone else, she should not be running.

[lenny]

Boy Lenny, I'm not sure what you're reading or watching, but apparently it is something very different than I am reading or watching.

I start out with Morning Joe on MSNBC...and then there's Chris Matthews, and Keith Olbermann, in between that I read the NY Times, and The Washington Post Online.

I think you do a lot more T.V. and mainstream press than me...and if you haven't figured it out, I view the T.V. as being a very dangerous thing. I do however catch some of it, usually on the Internet in the form of random articles and/or opinion pieces. It's not all bad, there are still some occasional gems, but I don't have any trust in the corporate press' overall independence and see it as being more than anything a propaganda outlet. Just look at how hard all the MSM outlets sold the Iraq war and all the lies that went with it. At the time I had cable and watched and read more MSM stuff and was completely blown away by the blatant propaganda. Turns out those media corporations are all owned by the defense industry and were, of course, more concerned with their profits, etc....

I don't know exactly how to explain what I'm reading and watching as far as news media stuff. A smorgasbord perhaps? Everything from mainstream to fringe and in between? I spend a lot of time on user submitted sites like reddit, although sometimes I get annoyed with those, and the people making comments are often annoying. I'd guess that a lot of what I read and see would intersect with what you're exposing yourself to, but I might just see a slightly different perspective or context. Bottom line, I believe there is still a free press in the U.S., but it exists outside of the old corporate outlets.


RACE is definitely an issue in this Presidential Nominee fight. Not sure who made it one, but if I were to guess, I would have to say "the Media!" They love a good fight, and they especially love it when they can make Race, Gender or Sex the motive.

I wasn't suggesting that race wasn't an issue, I was suggesting that it hasn't seemed to be as big of or as hyped of an issue when compared to gender. I'm sure there are many reasons for that, and I agree that the media turns everything into a circus, but I just think the gender factor is being overdone in the primaries. Hillary isn't the first woman to run in the Democratic primaries. The gender thing is being overdone too early and I really think it's unnecessary at this point, and people are going to get more and more fatigued from it. I believe it's going to cause a rift. They should have saved all the gender stuff for the general election where its significance would have actually been in play.

Lenny, just take a look at the comments on this forum by JimV. He has made several disparaging remarks about Senator Clinton's appearance as well as Speaker Pelosi's appearance. Have you seen or heard JimV make ANY comment about ANY of the Male Politicians' appearance? NOPE, and you won't! ONLY female politicians are "fair game" to use their looks or their clothes or their hairstyle or their aging appearance against them. Hell, John McCain is 20 years older than Senator Clinton, and yet JimV or You, or any other person on this forum has yet to mention how "old" John McCain looks. So then, WHY should anyone mention how Senator Clinton looks? It is totally irrelevant, and has absolutely nothing to do with her ability to run this country. And therefore, in my opinion, ANY reference to how a Candidate looks, or what they wear or how they're having a "bad hair day" is Crossing the Line, In my opinion! It is "belittling" in my opinion, and that is exactly why they do it. They try to diminish Senator Clinton to "Little Woman" status, and they all know, the little woman, belongs in the Kitchen, not The White House!

I don't even know where to begin. Jim has said his piece on this thread and you have an opportunity to hash it out with him if you wanted to. I will point out though that JimV kind of makes my perspective on this seem more true. By that I'm referring to the idea that the gender card and issue is being played and talked about way too early and too often. JimV and those like him are not voting in the Democratic primary for Obama. The general election hasn't even started yet. I suspect that the fact that this stupid campaign began in Dec. 2006 and has been talked about non-stop everyday since might be distorting things.

You ask me why I never say anything about McCain's looks, well, why would I? I don't say anything about any ones looks because I just don't care. I saw a picture of Hillary when she was in her early 20's and she was pretty cute in my opinion. So what? Now she's older. I've got no problems with what she wears or how she does her hair, leave that garbage for the MSM to talk about...because that's all they're good for anyway.

What you don't seem to realize is that all candidates are heavily scrutinized for their looks...which is total BS, but that's the MS press for ya. Just look at how they treat Kucinich's looks. If Huckabee was 400lbs Democrats would be calling him a gluttonous fat-ass. Remember Edwards got his hair cut? Romney is often referred to as the plastic man.

To suggest that only a female candidate would be judged and ridiculed for their looks is laughable, but I do think that when a females looks are scrutinized, it should be self-evident that that scrutiny is going to be different than what the males receive. Women and men are different. Go to a department store, look at the segregated clothes sections if you need a reminder. I agree that we shouldn't be focusing on appearance, and many aren't, but it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that men and women will be judged differently. My advice to you would be to turn off the T.V., and find some real news....

Lenny, both of these candidates are excellent representatives of The American People. BOTH have chosen to "put themselves out there" in an effort to Protect and Serve The American People. And running for President is no easy task, especially if you are a woman or a minority, since this has never happened before. Therefore, in my opinion, both of these people should be treated with the respect they have both earned and deserve. And being called an "Old Shrill Hag" is not my idea of respect.

I shudder at the thought, especially in the case of Clinton, that these people are in any way representatives of the American people. They belong to an elite club that you and I will never be a part of. I suspect that, like most all politicians, their own self-interests are of more importance to them than to protect and serve the American people. And this is the Democratic primaries so it's not the first time for a black person or a woman to run, but don't worry, I do realize it's a bit different this time because one of them will actually get the nomination.


If you don't like her politics, then by all means "have at it." But to resort to bullshit like "she looks like an old hag" is juvenile at best, rude and ignorant at worst, and I immediately "discount" the purveyor of such drivel as "ignorant and uneducated." Since if that is the "best" they can do, then she must be Pretty Damn Good!

This is where the MSM and your exposure to it come into play. I hate the Clintons politics and for the last 10 years I've been reading specifically about that, and absolutely nothing about their looks, gender, etc. It's like I told Gus, you guys keep talking about how no one can say anything about her politics, but they have, again and again and again, but you aren't interested in hearing about that and instead focus on all the trivial gender bias stuff. If you haven't heard solid critique of "Clintonism" politics and policies by now then you NEVER will.

[GUS]

Lenny-Hillary has been in the senate long enough for easy research into what her politics are. I seriously doubt if she has all the same political ideologies that Bill has. If you want to give Hillary a spanking for Bill's actions here are a few Clinton accomplishments.

When Bill took office, nearly 10 million Americans were unemployed but under Clinton the economy generated 22.88 million new jobs of which 91% were in the private sector.

During Reagan's presidency 77,000 Americans were lifted out of poverty and under Clinton 8.2 million were lifted out. That was a 21 percent reduction in the poverty rate. The African American and Hispanic poverty rates fell to the lowest levels on record to a nearly 33% all time low. Clinton raised 4.2 million kids out of poverty. Family income increased by $7,418 after adujusting for inflation. Under Reagan-Bush the richest 20% of families saw their incomes rise while the poorest families fell further and further behind. Under Bill income gains were up at least 15% for everyone and the poorest 20% familes got the largest income gains of 24%.

Of course you know that when Bill Clinton was elected the deficit was the highest in history but Bill announced his economic recovery package which freed up funds for private investment by reducing the deficit premium.
New plants, equipment, technology etc were all designed to help people make the most of new opportunities. Bill greatly increased the Pell Grants. He did a whole lot for education and he negotiated nearly 300 free and fair trade agreements growing exports 72%. Bill created Empowerment Zones to spur local community planning and economic growth in distressed communities through tax incentives....but that along with the crime rate dropping is all probably Hillary's fault, RIGHT? Or are you assigning all credit to BIll Gates and Alan Greenspan? It is staggering the damage George DUMBYA Bush has done to our economy every day, in every way. BOO, did he scare you?

[lenny]

Thanks Gus, I read the news.

Pretty funny that in the beginning of this thread I made two specific requests. 1) Don't bring up George W Bush. 2) Don't turn this into another Dems vs. Repubs back and forth. Subservience to political parties has made people completely delusional.

Gus, I wrote a long response to your original post. If you care to, you could pick something in there that maybe has something to do with gender, sexism, or how the candidates are or should be treated by the media, and what we as individuals should accept as fair game when criticizing the candidates.

[GUS]

You don't always get what you want.


http://www.TheYearsAreShort.com

[JIMV]

I still believe everyone should be treated the same and play under the same rules. As long as one can call a sitting president every name in the book but cannot be mean to a female senator, because she is female, we do not have a single set of political rules.

Look at the double standar don race...If a democrat makes a racist comment, it is swept under the rug while a lesser comment from a republican is front page news for weeks. (Lott v Byrd)

[GUS]

Are you talking about when Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either?"

Then last year there was the big controversy that Bill Clinton criticized the way Republicans run the House of Reps saying it “has been run like a plantation.” We heard about all the following Republicans who were very upset--Rep. Dennis Hastert, Sen. John McCain, Rep. Vito Fossella, Rep. Peter King, Laura Bush and Scott McClellan. Funny that Obama didn't get upset and all the critics were white and Republican. Remember that Hannity really tried to nail Clinton as a racist?

[JIMV]

Are you talking about when Lott said, "I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either?"

Yes when compared to Byrds:

"There are white niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use that word." March 4 2001

Byrd's father was a KKK member, Byrd himself was a KKK member and he organized a KKK chapter in his state.

Both statements were racist but only one had consequences....

[GUS]

Byrd was bad and checking on family trees of politicians must bring hours of joy to one with too much time on their hands.
Click here for a whole lot more (than 1) REPUBLICAN RACIST who has been outed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/articles/03/01/10_racist.html

[JIMV]

I have no need, both parties have racists, sexists and homophobes in office. The point was not who is worse but how both sides get treated when one of those politicians steps on it.

[McGyver]

I have no need, both parties have racists, sexists and homophobes in office. The point was not who is worse but how both sides get treated when one of those politicians steps on it.

LOL....Yes, that's probably a true enough statement Jim. However, It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to KNOW which Party has done the most to fight for the causes of Women, Blacks and Gays....And that most certainly would NOT be your Party Jim. It was NOT the Republicans who fought for civil rights in the 50's, it was NOT the Republicans who fight for a woman's rights, including a fair wage not based on gender, And it's certainly NOT the Democrats who keep using Gay Marriage as a Wedge Issue in every election, stomping on the rights of gays and lesbians everytime you turn around, whether it be on protecting gays from hate crimes, or denying gays the same rights as heterosexuals when it comes to marriage. That would be Your Party Jim, the Republican Party.

Also, it's certainly NOT a coincidence that the First Woman and First Black Man are both viable candidates for the Democratic Presidential Race, and NOT The Republican Presidential Race. And it will NOT be a coincidence when either a Democratic Woman or a Democratic Black Man will be the First of their Race or Gender to be Elected Democratic President of The United States of America!