Gore Vidal hates Republicans but is sympathetic toward Stalin, Castro, Kim Il-Sung, . . . and we're the dumb ones?
REALLY?
@Mediahohoho: Finally, something you and I agree on (and it's not the war).
@Yanee: @3cardkitty: @Strawberry-Switchblade:
. . .and one more thing, feminists have no sense of humor!
@mydeadgayson: I never said sexism doesn't exist and I never said it wasn't an issue in the campaign, I did agree with many commenters, and you, that it wasn't the deciding factor. If you're going to start an argument, try reading what I wrote AND comprehending it before launching into your diatribe, it makes your comments much more credible if you can at least pretend to know what you're talking about.
As for your comments about voting and slavery, let's try and stick to relevant facts. I'm pretty sure the country has changed quite a bit in the last 80 years, but if you're still pissed off that your great grandmother didn't get to vote for William Jennings Bryan, complain enough to Congress and maybe they'll let you open a casino. That seems to be a fair way to remedy historical grievances.
Sexism still exists, but most women have concluded it's a problem they can deal with, which is why NOW has about 50,000 members, down from the 2 million it had in the early 70's. But I guess you'd rather live in past, and maybe march in the streets shouting slogans, than admit that the deck isn't really stacked against you.
Now get back to your ironing honey, you've been surfing the net too much and you've become all confused again.
@Rob_Peter_to_Pay_Paultard: Rather than discuss your academic creditials relative to the other undergrads at your school, I'll point out that in business school the financial aid was largely divvied up according to (WARNING FEMALE READERS: ECONOMIC TERMS TO FOLLOW) supply and demand. The supply of black and female students was low but demand was high, because all the schools have diversity goals, as do the corporations that hire the graduates. Therefore, they were offered some opportunities during and after school that other students with similar records were not offered.
Just because you have a student loan, it doesn't mean you didn't receive some sort of preferential treatment. And I don't have a problem with that, diversity is a noble goal if achieved in a reasonable manner, and private colleges (not state schools, but that's an argument for another day) can admit students and grant aid by whatever standrd they please. Just be honest about it, it works both ways.
@hummingpenguin: No, I don't condone harassment. My point was simply that sometimes race and gender are disadvantages, i.e. Hillary gets criticized for her appearance and marriage more that a male politician does, and sometimes (college admissions, scholarships) it is advantageous to be in the minority.
By the tone of your comments you seem like the type of person who sees sexism around every corner, but I just don't think that is the case. FYI, my sister has a PhD in math, and she was involved with some of the women's graduate and professional student groups on campus intially, but lost interest after concluding they were comprised mostly of dissatisfied whiners.
Sexism exists, but it rarely prevents talented, hardworking women from being successful anymore.
@Yanee: "Typical feminist attitude", yeah I probably shouldn't have said that, but I'm a typical male jerk so I say things like that (all the time too, and I love that it drives my PhD sister crazy).
Yes there is sexism in the media and in other aspects of society, but so what, as you said it didn't cause Hillary to lose, and it doesn't stop women everyday from going to med school, running for office, running their own business, or whatever. Yes, sexism exists. Is it is big deal? Not really.
As you make have guessed, I'm a white male, I can tell you, although I'm not complaining, that no race or gender gets a treated equally all the time. For example, I went to graduate school, because there are an abundance of white males getting their MBA I received no scholarship money, and no preferential treatment in admissions. I'm still paying my $70K of student loans, and will be for a long time. If I was black or female, I would have been on full ride and been admitted at more schools. That's just life, and nobody gets a free ride.
@Yanee: I listened to what she said, and why mention the sexism if she didn't think it had an impact on the race, clearly Couric thought it did. If Hillary had won, would Couric have made her statement?
I don't remember Margaret Thatcher complaining about sexism in her day.
Hillary lost because she alienated a lot of people in her own party, plain and simple. And Couric is going to lose her job because she's costing CBS too much money for bad ratings, but I suppose she'll blame it on the sexism of TV viewers when all is said and done.
Typical feminist attitude, Hillary lost because she was a woman and the sexist voters and media don't want a woman in power, blah, blah, blah . . .
Really? Or, maybe she lost because she was a crappy candidate, ran a poor race, has serious integrity issues and has nothing new to say.
Haaaaayyy, ever heard of YRB magazine? Me neither, but if your soooper hoTT and sooooper kool, you can be in it.
XOXOXOXOX
@LittleJStoleMyHeadband: That info about Michigan used to be true but no longer is, almost all major conference football programs make money, due to TV contracts and bowl payouts, which are divided equally among each team in the conference.
The Indianapolis Star did a great study of the topic recently, I think you can still link to it on their website, and they used the financial information that all state schools are required to make public. Basically, football and men's basketball make money and pay the bills for the rest of the athletic department. Of course, whatever revenue the AD produces is consumed by the AD, so it never goes back to the university. One notable exception is Florida, where the AD recently gave a few million back to the university bacause they are rolling in dough.
I'm not a fan of huge athletic budgets, etc., but TV revenues have dramatically changed the economics of college sports.
Hmmmmm . . . No, I don't care, about any of it.
Off hand comments of no consequence, even ones on TV, are nothing to get worked up about.
Wait 'til 2009 when the Real Wives of Detroit hits the schedule, all those bitches are going see what time it is.
I've been pretty disappointed in Republican administrations and Congress for a variety of reasons, mostly lack of fiscal restraint, so I'm not on the partisan bandwagon, and I'm starting believe dictatorship is not a bad form of government, as long as I get to be the dictator. But I must take exception to several points of you make.
Clinton did commit perjury, sold pardons, had a lot of associates from Arkansas that went to jail on corruption charges, and Hillary hid files from the FBI after Foster's suicide. I don't care about the fooling around, but even excluding that, he was and is a sleaze.
The rich don't pay taxes? Absolutely false. I'm middle class, three kids and a mortgage, my taxes are modest. My high earning sister and her husband get creamed in taxes every year. I work in financial services and see a lot of tax returns, the wealthy pay plenty of taxes, even IRS statistics show that.
Stacking the judiciary with ideologues? Both Dems and Reps try to do that, but Congress holds up a lot of nominations and many are eventually withdrawn, checks and balances depending who is in power.
The largest foreign policy debacle in American history? I guess Vietnam doesn't count as a debacle in your book, or you're just ignoring it because it was the product of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
As for seeing the end of Republican domination, political cycles in the US tend to run about 50 years, the last Dem cycle went from FDR in '32 through Carter until Reagan reversed the pendulum in '80. This cycle has a few decades left to run, and I think you are guilty of wishful thinking.
@Mediahohoho: 27% is high compared to the 11% job approval rating registered by the Democratic Congress in recent polls, Pelosi and Reid aren't exactly held in high regard. One mistake the Dems have made for years is assuming dissatisfaction with Republican policies translates into popular approval of their ideas.
The election be decided by views of the war and the economy. I think moderate voters will have serious concerns about Obama's ability to solve foreign policy and economic problems, and his extremely liberal voting record in Congress, which hasn't received much scrutiny yet, will be an albatross around his neck in Nov.
McCain's ideas about healthcare? Dubious, and I can't stand McCain-Feingold, truly a terrible piece of legislation. I don't have much faith in McCain's judgement, but I'll hold my nose and vote for him.
Paying COBRA, that stinks, I feel for you (really, I've been there before myself) but neith Reps or Dem have done anything about healthcare, so there is plenty of blame to go around.
Hillary as McCain's VP, I was kidding, I just like throwing out crazy ideas now and then.
@TheLorax: We're going to have to disagree on what constitutes socialized medicine. If the federal government negotiates or regulates rates, terms of service, and other terms and conditions, that's socialized medicine in my book. Healthcare "managed" by the gov, one size fits all, similar to Medicare, that's a government program in my book, even if the money passes through private insurers at some point.
I'll concede that doesn't meet a strict definition of the term socialized, but a major expansion of government control of the healthcare system is heading in that direction, and as you indicate, most supporters of that change see it as a transitional step to a single payer system, which IS socialized medicine.
So it is a dubious claim that that's not really what you're advocating when in fact that is the ultimate goal of the left.
@Mediahohoho: Healthcare is very expensive, but I'd rather have my employer negotiate health insurance on my behalf and give me a range of options than the government. Personally, I have a great healthcare plan, BCBS, low copays, the monthly premiums kind of high, but I sure don't think a government plan would make it cheaper.
The uninsured are a problem, they're only healthcare is the emergency room, which is the most expensive form of care, and they can't pay the bill so that cost is picked up by the rest of us. I'm not sure what the best solution is, but screwing 80% of the population that has quality healthcare doesn't sound like a good idea to me.
Florida is on the verge of reducing regulation to allow companies to offer low cost, bare bones plans. It's a step in the right direction, less regulation=lower cost.
My prediction for November, McCain 51%, Obama 49%. Of course, just for fun, I'd like to see McCain pick Hillary as his running mate, then it would be McCain/Hillary 70%, Obama 30%, and he could dump her from the ticket in 2012.
@Mediahohoho: Everybody's in favor of national health care until they see the price tag. The system we have has problems, but so does every other system, try getting an MRI in Canada.
@TheLorax: I'm wrong about the facts? So neither Hillary or Obama support going to some sort of mandatory system like Massachusetts, or have expressed admiration for the Canadian system, or like Hillary have actually proposed a radical restructuring of the system? REALLY?
FYI, strong rebuttals require more substance than simply saying you're wrong.
You and I do agree on one point however, the US is not on the verge of going to a single payer system, not now and probably not ever, Michael Moore's efforts notwithstanding.
Enough on healthcare, boring topic anyway. My real point is that Democrats debate Hillary/Obama/race/gender/etc., but the real question is liberal vs. moderate. Electoral history shows that a liberal hasn't been elected President since '76, and the country is more conservative now than it was then. McCain can claim to be a moderate, but neither Democrat can really make that claim,, which is why the elcetion is a tossup, even with Bush being as unpopular as he is.
@TheLorax: Quick answer, busy at work so I can't make it longer. Hillary, despite her time in the Senate, is still known for her Hillarycare proposal in '93, which was nationalized healthcare, or socialized medicine, whichever term you prefer. Obama has made repeated references to supporting similiar ideas, Canadian style healthcare, but no specific proposals as of yet that I'm aware of. Bottom line, both candidates favor the idea and would likely support it if elected.
@NeverEnough: Tell me where you're institutionalized, I'll send some cookies.
@The Black Snob: If Douglas Wilder can get elected governor of red state Virginia, and Obama can get the nomination over Hillary, who was considered a shoo in 6 months ago, he can get elected president.
But here's another idea, maybe old time liberalism isn't as popular as the Democratic party faithful think it is. Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry, Obama; the ideological differences between each are insignificant. Even Bill Clinton never won the popular vote, topping out at 46% in '96 against a weak candidate (Dole). Higher taxes and socialized medicine, that's going to be a tough sell in November.
