CDZ There's a special place in Hell...

[320 Years of History]

I am not one of those folks whereof what I say is just as important as what I don't say, that is, short of understanding the meanings of the words I choose to say. In political campaigning, be it the candidates themselves or their advocates, unfortunately that's just not so.

This past weekend, Madeleine Albright once again uttered her well known aphorism, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." Although I have no strong feeling about the saying, I found it interesting that she repeated it.

It's pretty clear the statement makes the case that owners of vaginas must stick together for their collective benefit. That is probably true, in fact. Women's suffrage was achieved by women sticking together. The "glass ceiling" has developed cracks in it by women sticking together. Those two examples highlight not only the gains gender based solidarity can achieve, but also the need for it in order to make certain types of substantive change.

The thing I found surprising is that it was even necessary, in any regard, for Mrs. Albright to have made the remark. For instance, looking back at Mr. Obama's 2008 run, I can't recall hearing similar exhortations and reminders from black community leaders with regard to blacks needing to support Mr. Obama.

When I've discussed the "blacks voting for Mr. Obama because he is black" issue with my black friends and close acquaintances, to an individual, it has been the exact same basic story:

• He and Mrs. Clinton weren't all that far apart on the issues; either would have been perfectly acceptable.
• Given that for all intents and purposes they were indifferent between the two, they voted for Mr. Obama as a show of solidarity as much as anything else.

Interestingly, and not something I could not have foreseen (one way or the other) without having the conversations, the several black women with whom I spoke each saw their blackness as superior to the femininity.

I get the basic tenet of solidarity forged via commonalities. I'd certainly vote for a candidate with whom I went to high school, or whom I know in college, even if I had little substantive contact with them afterwards. I've simply never had to choose between two so clearly integral elements as my ethnicity or gender in an election. I honestly cannot reliably say what I'd do were I forced to do so. (As a white male, I doubt I ever will be; no candidate's maleness or whiteness has never crossed my mind as something to consider in choosing them.)

What I don't get is how it is that women need, judging my Mrs. Albright's remarks, need to be reminded to support Mrs. Clinton in part because she's a woman. I would think that any Democratic woman would immediately recognize that by placing a woman in the Presidency, it goes without saying that while she may not and really cannot pander to women's interest, at the very least, women's perspectives will unavoidably be kept in mind when making policy choices. For men, that's probably at worst a neutral thing, but for women, it can only be a good thing.

The questions I have for women participants here are these:

• In the Democratic primary, what about Mr. Sanders' policy positions bests Mrs. Clinton's to the extent that you can't countenance the prospect of her gaining the nomination? (Yes, I realize one must be a female Democrat to credibly answer this question.)
• Among the women here how far to the right must one be before Mrs. Clinton's policy positions are just too objectionable for you to support her even though you share her gender?
  
  Just so we have a common set of terms/measures for answering this question, please use the following guidelines to gauge how far left or right you are. (You can click on the image to access the source document from which it is taken along with a bit more explanation of what each label means.)
  
  
  
  
  
  To amplify on a point made above and put the matter in perspective, the black folks with whom I've spoken wouldn't vote for Ben Carson under any circumstances. I point that out because obviously merely being a member of a unique identity group isn't enough to garner the votes of others belonging to the same group. This question in the second bullet is about the limit of solidarity, where your innate awareness that a woman President isn't going to be a bad thing for you overall, even if certain of her policies may fit your ideal vision of what a President would propone.

 

[OldLady]

I don't think Clinton's election to president would do anything, particularly, to advance women. She is far too entrenched in politics as usual to affect any significant change in this country. I believe it is telling that so many young females are supporting Sanders, not Clinton, and it shows how little a factor gender has become for young women in this election. That is a good thing, I guess. I was an old soldier for women's rights in my day, but part of that fight was exactly to DROP the filter of gender and it has apparently worked to some extent. I think it was different with Obama, because racism is still such a real issue in this country. Women have fared better, and oh my goodness, would that we had a better candidate than Hillary to carry that banner, if we need it at all.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't think Clinton's election to president would do anything, particularly, to advance women. She is far too entrenched in politics as usual to affect any significant change in this country. I believe it is telling that so many young females are supporting Sanders, not Clinton, and it shows how little a factor gender has become for young women in this election. That is a good thing, I guess. I was an old soldier for women's rights in my day, but part of that fight was exactly to DROP the filter of gender and it has apparently worked to some extent. I think it was different with Obama, because racism is still such a real issue in this country. Women have fared better, and oh my goodness, would that we had a better candidate than Hillary to carry that banner, if we need it at all.

TY for your comments. Interesting ideas.

Red:
I don't think it would either...in much the same way Mr. Obama's tenure hasn't exactly advanced blacks. How could it? He's got to be President for everyone, so there's only so much he can legitimately do expressly for blacks Mostly all he can do is take care not to endorse policies that are specifically detrimental to blacks or that don't at least have their perspective in mind. I think it'd be much the same re: women were Mrs. Clinton elected President.

Blue:
Things for women are certainly better now than in Mother's day when, for example, women generally weren't so much academically, intellectually trained, but instead went to finishing school, a clear indicator of the role they were essentially required to take in life, public and private. So, I think the women's movement has indeed worked, even if not completely. Certainly to whatever extent it has worked, it is a good thing.

That said, it's clear that it hasn't entirely succeeded in overcoming all the old stereotypes. Look at how folks attempted to define Mrs. Clinton in terms of her husband and his shortcomings. That sort of thing just doesn't happen with regard to male candidates. God forbid Mrs. Clinton were to have had an extramarital affair as do plenty of powerful men. You and I both know what sort of epithets would fly were that so.

That's not to say a man would be publicly chided, perhaps even rebuked and derided for having an affair. But let's be real. Is there really a male equivalent to "whore/slut" that's ever been foisted upon a so-called cheating husband, to say nothing of a promiscuous young man? To my knowledge, "stud" or "player" is about it, and neither of those terms have the negative connotations associated with the aspersions cast upon similar women. That even as we know well that women and men have much the same degree of interest in sex. So at least in that one dimension, we still have a long way to go in the fight for women's equality.

 

[oldsoul]

That said, it's clear that it hasn't entirely succeeded in overcoming all the old stereotypes. Look at how folks attempted to define Mrs. Clinton in terms of her husband and his shortcomings. That sort of thing just doesn't happen with regard to male candidates. God forbid Mrs. Clinton were to have had an extramarital affair as do plenty of powerful men. You and I both know what sort of epithets would fly were that so.

Thankfully, I guess, this is changing rapidly with the Millenials, and younger kids. Seems that "hooking-up" with multiple partners is not seen as a bad thing for girls/women any more than it is for boys/men. Not sure if it is good, maybe should be heading the other way, but that is a topic for another thread.

 

[2aguy]

so...when Hilary knew her husband had sexually assaulted,all of those women...and then led the team of private detectives and political operatives to silence them with threats and intimidation.......did she secure her own place in hell...at the head of the line?

 

[OldLady]

I don't think Clinton's election to president would do anything, particularly, to advance women. She is far too entrenched in politics as usual to affect any significant change in this country. I believe it is telling that so many young females are supporting Sanders, not Clinton, and it shows how little a factor gender has become for young women in this election. That is a good thing, I guess. I was an old soldier for women's rights in my day, but part of that fight was exactly to DROP the filter of gender and it has apparently worked to some extent. I think it was different with Obama, because racism is still such a real issue in this country. Women have fared better, and oh my goodness, would that we had a better candidate than Hillary to carry that banner, if we need it at all.

TY for your comments. Interesting ideas.

Red:
I don't think it would either...in much the same way Mr. Obama's tenure hasn't exactly advanced blacks. How could it? He's got to be President for everyone, so there's only so much he can legitimately do expressly for blacks Mostly all he can do is take care not to endorse policies that are specifically detrimental to blacks or that don't at least have their perspective in mind. I think it'd be much the same re: women were Mrs. Clinton elected President.

Blue:
Things for women are certainly better now than in Mother's day when, for example, women generally weren't so much academically, intellectually trained, but instead went to finishing school, a clear indicator of the role they were essentially required to take in life, public and private. So, I think the women's movement has indeed worked, even if not completely. Certainly to whatever extent it has worked, it is a good thing.

That said, it's clear that it hasn't entirely succeeded in overcoming all the old stereotypes. Look at how folks attempted to define Mrs. Clinton in terms of her husband and his shortcomings. That sort of thing just doesn't happen with regard to male candidates. God forbid Mrs. Clinton were to have had an extramarital affair as do plenty of powerful men. You and I both know what sort of epithets would fly were that so.

That's not to say a man would be publicly chided, perhaps even rebuked and derided for having an affair. But let's be real. Is there really a male equivalent to "whore/slut" that's ever been foisted upon a so-called cheating husband, to say nothing of a promiscuous young man? To my knowledge, "stud" or "player" is about it, and neither of those terms have the negative connotations associated with the aspersions cast upon similar women. That even as we know well that women and men have much the same degree of interest in sex. So at least in that one dimension, we still have a long way to go in the fight for women's equality.

We have a long way to go in many areas, but there is only so much change a culture can absorb at once. Women performers like Beyonce on the Superbowl half-time show make me wince, especially since they've had her on twice in the past few years. Yes, she's a great dancer and a good singer, but all the kiddies are around during the Superbowl and I hate to see those sexual gyrations held up as a role model for little girls, for how a FAMOUS SUCCESSFUL woman should look and act. Glory. It's nearly like John Lennon and Yoko Ono doing it in the road.

 

[320 Years of History]

We have a long way to go in many areas, but there is only so much change a culture can absorb at once. Women performers like Beyonce on the Superbowl half-time show make me wince, especially since they've had her on twice in the past few years. Yes, she's a great dancer and a good singer, but all the kiddies are around during the Superbowl and I hate to see those sexual gyrations held up as a role model for little girls, for how a FAMOUS SUCCESSFUL woman should look and act. Glory. It's nearly like John Lennon and Yoko Ono doing it in the road.

I understand where you're coming from on that, but I don't share your reservations about it.

Red:
There's an interesting set of topics:

• The extent to which celebrities must or should consider their role model status in choosing how they "do their thing."
• The role and onus of parents in defining and controlling who are and are not permitted to serve as role models for their kids.
  • Parent's onus to make clear to their kids that, say, Beyonce's gyrations, while okay for her, are unsuitable for children, whereas other aspects of her songs and performances may be acceptable for kids.
• Whether the Victorian-esque mores we sometimes see remain practically "enforceable" in modern culture.

Having raised three kids -- two boys and a girl (the oldest) -- I had to deal with all those things. I basically operated on the "if they were asking about or expressing interest in something, it was time for me to deal with it -- supportively or discouragingly -- head on." I didn't take the "keep in under wraps" approach. I found the "deal with it directly and present it as 'not all that big of a deal' " tactic to (1) work and (2) work best as my kids were not physically in my presence near as much as most kids are with their parents.

Of course, from time to time, I or my ex wife would get calls from a school's shocked teacher(s) because one of my kids in class made a sex-related topic the instructors felt too "mature" a topic for their age. C'est la vie. My kids don't yet have any kids, haven't contracted any STDs and see folks like Beyonce for what they are, entertainers seeking, for financial reasons, to appeal to as wide an audience as they can.

 

[Rouge Rover]

I think it's funny Albright had to resort to invoking the prospect of Hell just to get women to vote for Hillary. Internal polling must show Hillary in deep trouble.

 

[OldLady]

We have a long way to go in many areas, but there is only so much change a culture can absorb at once. Women performers like Beyonce on the Superbowl half-time show make me wince, especially since they've had her on twice in the past few years. Yes, she's a great dancer and a good singer, but all the kiddies are around during the Superbowl and I hate to see those sexual gyrations held up as a role model for little girls, for how a FAMOUS SUCCESSFUL woman should look and act. Glory. It's nearly like John Lennon and Yoko Ono doing it in the road.

I understand where you're coming from on that, but I don't share your reservations about it.

Red:
There's an interesting set of topics:

• The extent to which celebrities must or should consider their role model status in choosing how they "do their thing."
• The role and onus of parents in defining and controlling who are and are not permitted to serve as role models for their kids.
  • Parent's onus to make clear to their kids that, say, Beyonce's gyrations, while okay for her, are unsuitable for children, whereas other aspects of her songs and performances may be acceptable for kids.
• Whether the Victorian-esque mores we sometimes see remain practically "enforceable" in modern culture.

Having raised three kids -- two boys and a girl (the oldest) -- I had to deal with all those things. I basically operated on the "if they were asking about or expressing interest in something, it was time for me to deal with it -- supportively or discouragingly -- head on." I didn't take the "keep in under wraps" approach. I found the "deal with it directly and present it as 'not all that big of a deal' " tactic to (1) work and (2) work best as my kids were not physically in my presence near as much as most kids are with their parents.

Of course, from time to time, I or my ex wife would get calls from a school's shocked teacher(s) because one of my kids in class made a sex-related topic the instructors felt too "mature" a topic for their age. C'est la vie. My kids don't yet have any kids, haven't contracted any STDs and see folks like Beyonce for what they are, entertainers seeking, for financial reasons, to appeal to as wide an audience as they can.

I see why you would think I'm Victorian, but actually I'm not. Well, maybe I am. I AM opposed to women continuing to market their bodies as sexual objects as their #1 claim to fame. At least, I am opposed to women doing that during the most watched family program of the year. My problem isn't Beyonce, per se, but putting her on half time during the Superbowl. I see your point, too, and of course that's how parents need to respond. But telling a little girl it isn't appropriate for her to act like that isn't really addressing the message that women need to market themselves that way to be popular. These are STARS, CELEBRITIES, BIG DEALS. It must be right if they are doing it, yes? I'm not doing a very good idea of expressing this, but it is at the root of what still needs to change in our culture. Women are still seen as sex objects in so many ways, and it is so ingrained no one notices.

 

[320 Years of History]

I see why you would think I'm Victorian, but actually I'm not. Well, maybe I am. I AM opposed to women continuing to market their bodies as sexual objects as their #1 claim to fame. At least, I am opposed to women doing that during the most watched family program of the year. My problem isn't Beyonce, per se, but putting her on half time during the Superbowl. I see your point, too, and of course that's how parents need to respond. But telling a little girl it isn't appropriate for her to act like that isn't really addressing the message that women need to market themselves that way to be popular. These are STARS, CELEBRITIES, BIG DEALS. It must be right if they are doing it, yes? I'm not doing a very good idea of expressing this, but it is at the root of what still needs to change in our culture. Women are still seen as sex objects in so many ways, and it is so ingrained no one notices.

Red:
LOL...FWIW, I am certain you aren't Victorian. LOL It was merely the tone of one of your comments that alludes to Victorian era inspired mores, but even so, there's nothing about them that could be considered genuinely Victorian.

Blue:
No question about that. It's definitely more than a ten second admonishment or remonstration to get that concept across to one's daughter, as well as getting similar/others made effectively to one's sons. At least for me it was. LOL Fortunately the point was made convincingly before something else was made due to the point's not having been made in time. <winks>

Pink:
Teaching my kids about logical fallacies was somewhat easier because their schools also made a point to do so too. Even so, it was yet another "more than ten second" discussion.

Purple:
No, you did fine, I think. The balanced tone and remarks get the point across well enough.

Orange:
While being primarily or initially objectified isn't a good thing for anyone, it's always befuddled me why it is that women came to be considered that way. The "it takes two to tango" aspect of many sexual interactions having lead to women being objectified for it and men not nearly as much is perplexing.

The subtlety with which that paradigm is ingrained in our cultural psyche cannot be understated. I have come to understand it only as one of those things that adults these days teach their kids not so much as directly or intentionally, but rather by their casual remarks and non-verbal communication, in part as a child's first and primary role model. I think it takes a whole lot for a parent to recognize their character weaknesses and shortcomings and actively aim not to pass them on to their kids. That there is an inherent "it was good enough for me, so it's good enough for my kids" mentality that accompanies most folks' initial parenting efforts doesn't help.

 

[OldLady]

While being primarily or initially objectified isn't a good thing for anyone, it's always befuddled me why it is that women came to be considered that way. The "it takes two to tango" aspect of many sexual interactions having lead to women being objectified for it and men not nearly as much is perplexing.
Do you really not know? It has been a man's world for as long as we can remember. What's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander, if the gander is in charge.
Thanks for being a parent that sees what's up and tries to raise the next generation with a little more wisdom than we had.

 

[320 Years of History]

While being primarily or initially objectified isn't a good thing for anyone, it's always befuddled me why it is that women came to be considered that way. The "it takes two to tango" aspect of many sexual interactions having lead to women being objectified for it and men not nearly as much is perplexing.
Do you really not know? It has been a man's world for as long as we can remember. What's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander, if the gander is in charge.

Thanks for being a parent that sees what's up and tries to raise the next generation with a little more wisdom than we had.

I do realize that is how things have come to be. I was getting at what events in history (obviously not any single event) made it be how/why things came to pass as they have.

Thanks and Red:
YW.

How dare I not!?! That is part of my job as a parent, right...I'd consider myself a failure at parenting if I didn't succeed in that regard. While the world moves faster these days and kids become unavoidably exposed to "stuff" so much sooner than perhaps you or I were, as a parent, it's somewhat easier these days too.

What with Skype, the WWW and other means of communication, I feel as though I had a far easier time of keeping up with what was up with my kids during their formative years, and especially as teens and young adults. Like me, albeit for different reasons, they spent the majority of their youth and all of high school in boarding schools, but technology today allowed me to be far more involved with them than my parents were with me. And that meant that I had a far more influential role in their lives than my parents did in mine.

The tech allowed me to be both a parent and a friend from a relatively early age, and I think that helped a lot. My parents and I didn't really shit into "friend mode" until I was close to 30. I think as a parent, the last thing one really yearns to do is "roll with the times and punches," yet that is exactly what one must do, just as one must professionally and socially.

 

[2aguy]

While being primarily or initially objectified isn't a good thing for anyone, it's always befuddled me why it is that women came to be considered that way. The "it takes two to tango" aspect of many sexual interactions having lead to women being objectified for it and men not nearly as much is perplexing.
Do you really not know? It has been a man's world for as long as we can remember. What's good for the goose is NOT good for the gander, if the gander is in charge.
Thanks for being a parent that sees what's up and tries to raise the next generation with a little more wisdom than we had.

And then men pacified the world and made it possible for women to advance.....you are welcome.

 

[MarathonMike]

Invoking some Pilgrim era notion of Hell to beg for women voters? That may be the most pathetic thing I've ever heard in a Presidential campaign. "Hillary is like your Abuela". "Happy Kwanza to my Black twitter friends". "Vote for me ladies or you are going to hell". What's next? This woman is whack-o.

 

[2aguy]

Invoking some Pilgrim era notion of Hell to beg for women voters? That may be the most pathetic thing I've ever heard in a Presidential campaign. "Hillary is like your Abuela". "Happy Kwanza to my Black twitter friends". "Vote for me ladies or you are going to hell". What's next? This woman is whack-o.

hilary helped her husband get away with rape and sexual assault...she is more than just a whacko.

 

[RandallFlagg]

I am not one of those folks whereof what I say is just as important as what I don't say, that is, short of understanding the meanings of the words I choose to say. In political campaigning, be it the candidates themselves or their advocates, unfortunately that's just not so.

This past weekend, Madeleine Albright once again uttered her well known aphorism, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." Although I have no strong feeling about the saying, I found it interesting that she repeated it.

It's pretty clear the statement makes the case that owners of vaginas must stick together for their collective benefit. That is probably true, in fact. Women's suffrage was achieved by women sticking together. The "glass ceiling" has developed cracks in it by women sticking together. Those two examples highlight not only the gains gender based solidarity can achieve, but also the need for it in order to make certain types of substantive change.

The thing I found surprising is that it was even necessary, in any regard, for Mrs. Albright to have made the remark. For instance, looking back at Mr. Obama's 2008 run, I can't recall hearing similar exhortations and reminders from black community leaders with regard to blacks needing to support Mr. Obama.

When I've discussed the "blacks voting for Mr. Obama because he is black" issue with my black friends and close acquaintances, to an individual, it has been the exact same basic story:

• He and Mrs. Clinton weren't all that far apart on the issues; either would have been perfectly acceptable.
• Given that for all intents and purposes they were indifferent between the two, they voted for Mr. Obama as a show of solidarity as much as anything else.

Interestingly, and not something I could not have foreseen (one way or the other) without having the conversations, the several black women with whom I spoke each saw their blackness as superior to the femininity.

I get the basic tenet of solidarity forged via commonalities. I'd certainly vote for a candidate with whom I went to high school, or whom I know in college, even if I had little substantive contact with them afterwards. I've simply never had to choose between two so clearly integral elements as my ethnicity or gender in an election. I honestly cannot reliably say what I'd do were I forced to do so. (As a white male, I doubt I ever will be; no candidate's maleness or whiteness has never crossed my mind as something to consider in choosing them.)

What I don't get is how it is that women need, judging my Mrs. Albright's remarks, need to be reminded to support Mrs. Clinton in part because she's a woman. I would think that any Democratic woman would immediately recognize that by placing a woman in the Presidency, it goes without saying that while she may not and really cannot pander to women's interest, at the very least, women's perspectives will unavoidably be kept in mind when making policy choices. For men, that's probably at worst a neutral thing, but for women, it can only be a good thing.

The questions I have for women participants here are these:

• In the Democratic primary, what about Mr. Sanders' policy positions bests Mrs. Clinton's to the extent that you can't countenance the prospect of her gaining the nomination? (Yes, I realize one must be a female Democrat to credibly answer this question.)
• Among the women here how far to the right must one be before Mrs. Clinton's policy positions are just too objectionable for you to support her even though you share her gender?
  
  Just so we have a common set of terms/measures for answering this question, please use the following guidelines to gauge how far left or right you are. (You can click on the image to access the source document from which it is taken along with a bit more explanation of what each label means.)
  
  
  
  
  
  To amplify on a point made above and put the matter in perspective, the black folks with whom I've spoken wouldn't vote for Ben Carson under any circumstances. I point that out because obviously merely being a member of a unique identity group isn't enough to garner the votes of others belonging to the same group. This question in the second bullet is about the limit of solidarity, where your innate awareness that a woman President isn't going to be a bad thing for you overall, even if certain of her policies may fit your ideal vision of what a President would propone.

I can't help but notice that Ms Albright said nothing about Carly Fiorina - or was she specifically talking about "liberal" women only? Doesn't matter now as Fiorina has since departed - but it DOES go to prove the hypocrisy of the left.

 

[320 Years of History]

I am not one of those folks whereof what I say is just as important as what I don't say, that is, short of understanding the meanings of the words I choose to say. In political campaigning, be it the candidates themselves or their advocates, unfortunately that's just not so.

This past weekend, Madeleine Albright once again uttered her well known aphorism, "There's a special place in Hell for women who don't help each other." Although I have no strong feeling about the saying, I found it interesting that she repeated it.

It's pretty clear the statement makes the case that owners of vaginas must stick together for their collective benefit. That is probably true, in fact. Women's suffrage was achieved by women sticking together. The "glass ceiling" has developed cracks in it by women sticking together. Those two examples highlight not only the gains gender based solidarity can achieve, but also the need for it in order to make certain types of substantive change.

The thing I found surprising is that it was even necessary, in any regard, for Mrs. Albright to have made the remark. For instance, looking back at Mr. Obama's 2008 run, I can't recall hearing similar exhortations and reminders from black community leaders with regard to blacks needing to support Mr. Obama.

When I've discussed the "blacks voting for Mr. Obama because he is black" issue with my black friends and close acquaintances, to an individual, it has been the exact same basic story:

• He and Mrs. Clinton weren't all that far apart on the issues; either would have been perfectly acceptable.
• Given that for all intents and purposes they were indifferent between the two, they voted for Mr. Obama as a show of solidarity as much as anything else.

Interestingly, and not something I could not have foreseen (one way or the other) without having the conversations, the several black women with whom I spoke each saw their blackness as superior to the femininity.

I get the basic tenet of solidarity forged via commonalities. I'd certainly vote for a candidate with whom I went to high school, or whom I know in college, even if I had little substantive contact with them afterwards. I've simply never had to choose between two so clearly integral elements as my ethnicity or gender in an election. I honestly cannot reliably say what I'd do were I forced to do so. (As a white male, I doubt I ever will be; no candidate's maleness or whiteness has never crossed my mind as something to consider in choosing them.)

What I don't get is how it is that women need, judging my Mrs. Albright's remarks, need to be reminded to support Mrs. Clinton in part because she's a woman. I would think that any Democratic woman would immediately recognize that by placing a woman in the Presidency, it goes without saying that while she may not and really cannot pander to women's interest, at the very least, women's perspectives will unavoidably be kept in mind when making policy choices. For men, that's probably at worst a neutral thing, but for women, it can only be a good thing.

The questions I have for women participants here are these:

• In the Democratic primary, what about Mr. Sanders' policy positions bests Mrs. Clinton's to the extent that you can't countenance the prospect of her gaining the nomination? (Yes, I realize one must be a female Democrat to credibly answer this question.)
• Among the women here how far to the right must one be before Mrs. Clinton's policy positions are just too objectionable for you to support her even though you share her gender?
  
  Just so we have a common set of terms/measures for answering this question, please use the following guidelines to gauge how far left or right you are. (You can click on the image to access the source document from which it is taken along with a bit more explanation of what each label means.)
  
  
  
  
  
  To amplify on a point made above and put the matter in perspective, the black folks with whom I've spoken wouldn't vote for Ben Carson under any circumstances. I point that out because obviously merely being a member of a unique identity group isn't enough to garner the votes of others belonging to the same group. This question in the second bullet is about the limit of solidarity, where your innate awareness that a woman President isn't going to be a bad thing for you overall, even if certain of her policies may fit your ideal vision of what a President would propone.

I can't help but notice that Ms Albright said nothing about Carly Fiorina - or was she specifically talking about "liberal" women only? Doesn't matter now as Fiorina has since departed - but it DOES go to prove the hypocrisy of the left.

I think it's safe to say Mrs. Albright wasn't about to endorse a Republican female candidate being that Mrs. Albright is a Democrat who served as Secretary of State in the Clinton Administration. Her ties to Mrs. Clinton go well beyond Mrs. Clinton's current candidacy.

I suspect Mrs. Albright is willing to be supportive of Ms. Fiorina in general, and likely applauds her efforts to earn the GOP nomination, but politically in a race against a Democrat, well, let's just say salt will glow before that happens.

 

[protectionist]

So after Trump gets elected president, and REAL Republicans replace the RINOs in the Congress, and Hillary gets convicted (of TREASON of course), what do you guys think should be the method of execution ?

a. Hanging

b. Electric Chair

c. Firing Squad

d. Beaten to death by the families of 4 Benghazi guys she killed.

e. Beaten to death by the US spys in the field whose lives she endangered (if they're still alive by that time)