So Edwards throws in the towel...

[Lurker]

The democratic party is so filled with hypocricies, it's pitiful.

Not as pitiful as your's and Embar's mental faculties.

Nobody claimed that 'only a woman can fix gender inequalities' or that 'only minorities can fix race inequalities'. That would be as stupid and saying only poor people can help the poor. Now, if there are inequalities in representation of a certain segment of population, and you want to rectify that, the only way to achieve balance is to elect more of that segment.

[Embar Angylwrath]

Then tell us Lurker, using your mental prowess, what you understand Klast's wife's motives to be in wanting to elect Hillary?

[Lurker]

Saying you want to elect more women to achieve balance in representation is not the same as saying 'only a woman can fix gender inequalities'. It sounded like Klast's wife wants to elect Hillary so a woman will be President, not because she thinks only a woman can address womens issues. That might be shallow, but it's not what you said it was.

[Klast Brell]

Lurker is correct.

[Harlowe]

I think it's clearly different to say "I'd like to see a woman in this position" (since we have not had one yet) then say "Only a woman can do this job".

I kind of doubt Klast is married to a sexist.

[Embar Angylwrath]

So... let me get this straight...

Klast's wife wants Hillary to sit in the Oval Office, because she thinks there's gender inequality with US Presidents. So she wants to elect Hillary to make a statement on gender inequality. Hey, its her vote. Me, I'm more concerned with what a person will do when they are President, than by what gender they are.

Harlowe - anyone who makes a choice based on gender, that choice, by definition, is sexist. Klast's wife wants to combat sexism in the office of the President by making a sexist choice. So really, Kalst's wife only hates sexism when it works against women, but has no problem with it when it works for women.

Its the same thing as affirmative action. Affirmative action employs selection criteria that is racist... all to purportedly combat racism. It is very disingenious for a person to claim they hate racism and sexism, and then to readily accept choices that are racist or sexist, as long as THEIR race or THEIR gender is the beneficiary.

[Harlowe]

I'd like to see some diversity in either the office of president or vp, but Hillary is not the one that is going to inspire me to vote vagina. Oh that was sexist wasn't it.

Yeah, I don't care.

[Embar Angylwrath]

At least you're honest about it Harlowe, after the tongue is removed from your cheek.

People have a right to vote. They don't have to justify it. If females want to vote for other females just becuase they are females, go for it. But don't try to mask it as anything other than sexism.

[Klast Brell]

You live in a world where to recognize that something is unfair and want to do something about it is unfair. What a tremendously convenient way to maintain the status quo. "Why no I couldn't possibly let anyone new in to the old boys club. That would be unfair to the old boys"

[Ddrak]

You live in a world where to recognize that something is unfair and want to do something about it is unfair. What a tremendously convenient way to maintain the status quo. "Why no I couldn't possibly let anyone new in to the old boys club. That would be unfair to the old boys"

The way to fix unfairness is to remove the unfairness, not to tip it over in the other direction.

If you vote for a woman to be President strictly because she's a woman then you are being unfair to her as a politician. You're saying that she's not as good as the men, but because she's a woman you'll ignore that. It's not fair to anyone - the woman or the man. The way to fix it is to vote for the best person for the job, man or woman, based on their policies and abilities.

Think about it - would you vote for Paris Hilton if she ran for President? I mean, she's a woman too right? By voting for "a woman" you're saying Hillary is no better than Paris, and definitely not as good as a man.

This is the fundamental problem with all affirmative action schemes - they only work to maintain the essential racism/sexism/whateverism that is the base problem because they effectively say "that woman's not as good so we need to give her an artificial boost". I do understand the theory of trying to level the playing field where one party has been disadvantaged wrongly in the past, but I don't buy this as a solution.

Dd

[Garrdor]

One time I threw a towel and it landed on my dogs face as he was running after a ball. He ran into the fence LOL.

We put him to sleep.

[Embar Angylwrath]

You live in a world where to recognize that something is unfair and want to do something about it is unfair. What a tremendously convenient way to maintain the status quo. "Why no I couldn't possibly let anyone new in to the old boys club. That would be unfair to the old boys"

Implied in your statement is that unfair tactics are the only way to combat an unfair situation. I don't buy that.

And in regards to the "old boys club".. that is simply not the case. Maybe it once was, but it is irrelevant today (I'm speaking from the perspective of a businessman). I don't care what gender a person is, or what color, or what religion. If they are my employees, I care that they perform well. If they are my client, I care that they pay on time.

Oh, and on a side note, the two women in my company are the highest paid individuals. One of them, a salesperson, will make more than me as an owner.

And I have yet to meet a fellow businessperson that gives a flying fuck about gender and race. A woman's money or a non-Caucasion's money spends just as well as Joe Whitey's. The "old boys club" that liberals like to trot out is a relic of the past, ireelevant in today's business world, and just a dusty boogey-man people like to use to deflect from their own personal inadequacies.

And Dd was spot on when he said using gender based criteria and race based criteria is an insult. Your wife is saying she'd vote for Hillary not because of what she can do, but because of what she is.

Hooray for the American electorate.

[Harlowe]

If all things were equal between candidates (I didn't think one was truly any better or worse than the other), I would definitely vote for a woman or a minority. But like I said, the vag vote isn't something appealing to me this election year.

I just feel it's time the good ol' boys (it's soo not liberal rhetoric, we know damn well it exists in both parties) let some others in their clubhouse. I really don't find this to be an unconscionable way to vote and if anyone else does, ohhhhh well, it's maaah vote. My Grandma told me she voted for fucking Reagan because she thought he was cute.

[Ddrak]

If all things were equal between candidates (I didn't think one was truly any better or worse than the other), I would definitely vote for a woman or a minority.

I don't have an issue with *that*, but I've never actually seen a real case where all other things were equal.

Dd

[Finglefinn]

There is no such thing as an educated voting population. The vast majority do not vote on issues nor research the candidates individually. This problem is illustrated quite clearly in this topic.

[Klast Brell]

Experience is not that important. Presidents have cabinets and advisers for that. There is little to differentiate Clinton and Obama's stands on the main issues. So it comes down to hair splitting and gut feelings. Given a choice between 2 equally capable political candidates, or 2 equally capable job applicants how do you pick?

[Embar Angylwrath]

You pick the candidate that you feel can accomplish the most, regardless of whether or not they use tampons.

[Ddrak]

Experience is not that important. Presidents have cabinets and advisers for that. There is little to differentiate Clinton and Obama's stands on the main issues. So it comes down to hair splitting and gut feelings. Given a choice between 2 equally capable political candidates, or 2 equally capable job applicants how do you pick?

Experience in picking cabinets and advisers is very important - will they pick people who just tell them what they want to hear, or will they pick people who will give them strong independent views? I also think Clinton and Obama have quite different stances on a few issues (where Clinton actually has a stance and Obama dodges). I find it hard to believe that it's difficult to differentiate between the two.

Still, aren't you guys in Minnesota and didn't you only have Hillary on the vote?

Dd

[Harlowe]

Picking cabinet members certainly is important. Bush has certainly fucking demonstrated how important it is. Mr. Master of Toadies.

Why would there only be Hillary in Minnesota? I'm pretty sure all parties have multiple choices, unless you are just being trite.

Obama is going to do well here I think. He was just here at the Target Center on Saturday and definitely rallied the troups.

[Embar Angylwrath]

I think he's talking about Michigan. Hillary left her name on the ballot, Obama didn't. The DNC stripped Michigan (and Florida) of delegates for moving the primaries around.