Forkers Central

This guy at work who is only allowed to sit with us because we're friends with his wife says, that he can't see himself voting for Hillary *or* Obama, bacause Obama doesn't have enough experience, and Hillary....
and at this point I'm waiting for one of those vague claims that she's just somehow manish and repulsive, right? But no!
...is a woman, and I don't want to sound chauvinistic, but I just don't think a woman would be very good at handling the Middle East.

When I mentioned Madeline Albright he asked, "but did she deal much with the Middle East?" No, she was in charge of making the fucking cookies. I got up to clear my stuff off the table and said, "yep, that's pretty chauvinistic, Shawn..." and left it at that.

So this conversation has been eating at me all afternoon, and the guy being a chauvinist pig aside, what I cannot for the life of me understand is why he felt it would be a good idea to express that opinion in the office to a table of three women. Ok, one of these women was his wife, so she's already heard the schpeal and evidentially it doesn't bother her... But What the fuck was he thinking saying that shit to ME? All I can come up with is that he felt comfortable, like he was around friends. It's a good thing for him he is NOT my friend or he would have gotten an earful.

This doesn't pertain to you guys I know, but I didn't want to blog it because his wife might see it and I'm trying not to cause tension @ work, but CHRIST I had to vent about that.

what a douche. i don't want to vote for hillary, but it has less to do with her being a woman and more to do with the fact i don't trust her. or politicians in general.

Your witty comeback should have been: "Well I see the men are doing a stellar job of taking care of business there."

Ok, one of these women was his wife, so she's already heard the schpeal and evidentially it doesn't bother her...

oh god, weak women are so haaawt.

I wonder what goes through her head when he says that. "yes, my place is in the home with 800 babies chomping on my nips while you go out hunting"

I love when peoples' arguments and opinions just boil down to the same old repetitive phrases they hear over and over again without any of their own words added - admittedly I've been there in the past but surely there comes a time when you have to OPEN YOUR EYES!
pop quiz - who or what am I talking about when I say these easy to digest and regurgitate soundbytes

"flip flopper"
"JUST WAKE UP!/OPEN YOUR EYES!"
"He's low in the polls, but"

feel free to add your own.
"

your response should have been a punch in the face!

Oh, I'm totally responding to this when I get out of class...

jackass is he.

but the Obama no experience thing is something I don't get. What president in my lifetime was "experienced" enough? a bunch of ex governors. Bush 1 and his CIA background and 8 years as the vice maybe, he did avoid the war his son got into. I hear this excuse over and over but I can never get anyone to explain it to me.

Okay, these are my three cent on this subject - not the jackass you work with, that speaks for itself - what a douche fairy - but to the issue of electability and the direction of America:

I personally love Barack Obama, as far as Democrats go, or politicians for that matter. I think he's exceptionally bright, I think he's a forward thinker, and he could be the future of the Democratic Party and a new paradigm in American politics. But this is not his time. He is too inexperienced to be president, he's too inexperienced to even run a truly effective campaign. He's had some great success, and he's a front-runner, but I think a lot of that support is based on people's love of the spectacle and also on grassroots support that is not powerful enough to carry him through the homestretch. One of my concerns, even if he did get the nomination, is that because of the types of political compromises he will have to make to win in the general, he will end up being forced to either betray his most fundamental grass roots supporters and the bold populist positions that have made him their darling (as Senate Majority Leader, he could have been in a much stronger position to lead on many of these issues), OR he'll hold to his positions, which I admire, but it will cost him the crucial battle for moderates and undecideds, and thereby the general election. And most of all, I mean that when I say he's too inexperienced, these are the kinds of things I'm talking about: he does not have the political experience and savvy to navigate these delicate balances and turn them to his advantage. He could be the future of the party and country, but he's blowing a great deal of his remarkable political capital on this primary campaign, which even if he wins, will end up either betraying his supporters or throwing the election to the republicans, or god forbid, the third-party candidate the Christian Coalition-types have publicly stated they're considering, though I doubt they will; that would guarantee a Democratic White House.

Which leads me to Senator Clinton. She has as much, if not more political experience AND savvy as anyone else in either field. Her fundraising, though slightly less than Senator Obama's overall, is generally more substantiable, and more importantly, was higher for this last quarter going into the primaries. Her fundraising has been steadily increasing while Obama's has dropped sharply. That is going to create a great deal of momentum during this crucial period going into the primaries. She's holding significant ground in key primary battle ground states, and her support has been consistent since the beginning of her campaign in a way that Barack Obama's has not. She has substantive experience at all levels of government, from civic law and charity work, a great deal of which has been aimed specifically at children's and family health issues - which she's managed to do while maintaining a pro-choice position - to the governor's mansion to eight years in the White House, during which she took on unprecedented leadership in policy issues and redefined the role of the First Lady. She leveraged that into a huge Senate win, becoming a member of the upper house of our federal legislative branch representing one of our largest and most influential states during a time of crisis. She has held that seat and has not only acrued a great deal of legislative experience, but she has built relationships on the hill that could go a long way to establishing good will between the two branches during her presidency and break a great deal of logjams, especially with someone like Obama as majority (or god forbid minority) leader (if he can stay in the Senate, I'm not sure how much longer his current term lasts). She is even tempered and she has been preparing for this longer than anyone. She has overcome a great deal of political obstacles, and has stuck with it longer than most. And I think she's going to win the whole thing. She can beat Romney, she can beat Guiliani, even in their own state, McCain can't even win his own party, and Ron Paul and Fred Thompson don't have even base support in their party.

Now, I will whole heartedly concede the possibility that there may still be a slim majority of back breeds in this country, for what ever reason, who are not comfortable with the "idea of a woman as president." However, I think there are concerns on the parts of most Americans that trump that one, and they know we are in deep, DEEP trouble right now. Presidential approval rates have never been lower, and people are ready for change. These campaigns are ALREADY proof that this is a paradigm-shifting time in American politics, and the blue ribbon is more up for grabs than it's ever been. I think that, all obstacles and credits aside, Hillary Clinton might be positioned better than anyone to just snatch it up for herself, and I think also that there are way worse things that could happen than another Clinton Presidency (imagine how strong her campaign is going to be when she wins the nomination and announces Gore as her running mate at the convention). At the end of the day, I think if she can convince 51% of voters that she is the right person for the job, they will vote for her EVEN THOUGH they might not be comfortable with the "idea of a woman as president." At that's what it really comes down to: who can do the job. And she can do the job. If you're looking to the candidates for someone to trust, you'll looking for love in all the wrong places. Pick someone who can do the job, and pick someone who can win. If we got even one of those only two things, it'd be one or two things more than we've had for the last 7 years.

Interesting point that the money seems to be shifting her way as the race progresses. One could interpret that as an indication that people are gaining comfort with the "idea of a woman president".

Interesting point that the money seems to be shifting her way as the race progresses. One could interpret that as an indication that people are gaining comfort with the "idea of a woman president".

I think this might be true. Another thing that's kind of remarkable is that not only has she surpassed Obama in fundraising this quarter, but she also devasted one of his key points: He has claimed all along that while Hillary may be raising all this money, his is coming mostly from new contributers and low dollar donors, as opposed to her big-money contributors. Her numbers for those same groups almost reached the same levels as his this quarter, robbing him of the title of ownership of the grass-roots base. She is gaining significant ground in a number of areas, and is still the front-runner - though not a lock, mind you.

Oh.

My.

God.


The Hillary Nutcracker

- Mere "also has stainless steel thighs" 1975

haha what a great song to go with it.

I'm just amazed that a person can sit in mixed company and say right out loud that he wouldn't vote for a candidate because that candidate is a woman. Yet he claims he wouldn't vote for the African-American candidate due to a "lack of experience". I hope someone feeds that elephant in the room before he starves to death.

Sybil