Is sexism dogging Hillary's presidential hopes?
WASHINGTON -- On a day trip to Buffalo last week, a half-dozen women came up to me and said, in essence, that they're mad as hell.
A woman had a chance to be president, and a younger, less experienced man appears to have taken that chance away from her, and these women were not happy about it.
And they were not alone. I had been hearing similar sentiments on the campaign trail for weeks. Now they seemed to be reaching a peak, though, so I decided to write about them.
Again and again, the women I interviewed raised the possibility that sexism stood between Hillary Clinton and the presidency. After all, there are no Barack Obama nutcrackers out there, and nobody has devoted a long story to his slim, athletic visage the way the Washington Post devoted a story to Clinton's cleavage.
If this is sexism, it has gone largely unnoticed in a campaign where race and racism have never been far from front-and-center.
But should it go unnoticed? Or is Hillary Clinton now the Democratic runner-up because too many Americans just aren't ready for a female president?
-- Jerry Zremski
What's dogging Hillary is her attitude of entitlement. She obviously felt as if it was her turn but Obama stole her thunder. One of my biggest complaints about her is her attitude when things do not go her way. When she doesn't succeed in doing something it's because someone was against her, not because she didn't do a good enough job. When things don't go her way she complains about the rules. Florida and Michigan were non issues prior to the race. She knew the expectations and agreed that these states would be disciplined for moving there primaries ahead of New Hampshire. Now it's her assertion that it's undemocratic that they don't have delegates, what nonsense!
She's proving that she is no better than Rove-Bush when it comes to playing the game.
Posted by: The Relocated | May 23, 2008 at 03:51 PM
Hillary is a woman?! Seriously... She is more of a man than Bill was... heh lol. Really this time, seriously: I have nothing sexist against her, if it was any other woman up there running I would give her the consideration she was due. I cannot get over the fact that she is a clinton, she is dirty, she has been a waste here as a senator, she is greedy, she is destroying the democratic party for personal gain(woohoo and thanks hill!!) she is sleazy, she has no moral foundations (still married to a cheating husband? What a great father figure he is!), record number of earmarks, doc my pay to give it to a mandatory health insurance company will ya??!?! She isn't failing because she is a woman, she is failing because of the Internet generation is there reminding people of the scum the clintons are. The days of old school politics are over thankfully and the clintons are left behind like the trash they are.
Posted by: Bob | May 23, 2008 at 08:42 AM
The head of the New York chapter of NOW blasted Ted Kennedy a few months back because he wouldn't back Carpetbagger. And not out of any principle, but the sheer fact that he had the unmitigated gall to not back the Female Candidate. Because if there is a Female Candidate, the True Progressive will back her regardless of how much she sucks.
You want to talk of sexism? How about the unsatisfied women whose excitement over Carpetbagger's campaign was predicated on her gender?
As a candidate, Clinton is trash. She's a Democrat barely in touch with the party's core voter base, and she has the charisma of my shoe. Her campaign has been a fractured mess, and I don't think her alligator tears helped. She is the one who can beat McCain, but nobody likes her, and it's her own fault.
She isn't losing this race because she's a woman, but because people are realizing that aside from being a shrill harpie and millionaire mercantilist, she's got even less of a track record than that personality cult she's battling for the nomination.
Posted by: Troy Cumbo | May 22, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Hillary Clinton's Presidential hopes are not dogged because of sexism. She also has Plan B, to run as an Independent, ala Joe Liebermann, probably with a moderate Republican VP. It's not over till its over. Actually, the only reason she has a chance is because she is female....that, and the Clinton name. A male Rodham could never make it, look at her brother.
Posted by: Stan | May 20, 2008 at 05:23 PM
Sorry, but I agree that this is nothing more than, more of the same. Sexism, at its worst, the media has only helped fuel the flame...
http://reflections-in-tyme.blogspot.com/
Posted by: debi | May 20, 2008 at 04:13 PM
I would be more then happy to see a woman president, but Hillary is completely untrustworthy.
She takes any position to advance herself.
She voted for the war to make her seem less left leaning. And for the longest time, refused to admit she was wrong (Do we need another president who cannot admit mistakes?)
Same reason she co-sponsored a law to ban flag burning.
She is a liar, (Landing under fire)
I am a life long liberal leaning democrat but I will NEVER vote for her.
Posted by: Rad | May 20, 2008 at 02:23 PM
"Mr. Obama used the term sweetie"
He said that to random females at least twice during the campaign. Kind of rude.
And he said he's been to 57 of the U.S. states. That's rude to somebody, but I'm not sure who.
He also this week totally wrongly described the order of historical events in Nazi Germany, showing a deep lack of knowledge about the WW-II era. He said European appeasment happened while Hilter was coming to power. It actually happened after Hitler was in power and taking military action.
If President Bush had called two randon women "sweetie", referred to 57 U.S. states, and rewritten WW-II era history that way, whouldn't the main stream media have mentioned all that a few million times over the past week?
Posted by: 57th governor | May 20, 2008 at 01:25 PM
As a McCain Republican, I couldn't be more delighted that about this.
But what would be everyone's reaction if Senator McCain chose a truly qualified person for VP, someone like Codoleeza Rice or Colin Powell? Or Kay Hutchinson, or Elizabeth Dole?
I suppose they wouldn't count, really.
Only minorities who recite the liberal line of high taxes, stupid trade policies, and complete government control of everyday life are entitled to the protections of "diversity" or "multiculturalism" or "affirmative action," - in other words, to claim the status of a victim.
The rest of us, whether man or woman, white or non-white, gay or straight - we'll just have to earn it, without victimhood or special rights or favoritism.
Posted by: Drew | May 19, 2008 at 11:56 PM
Sexual bias against women in authority is nothing new. Why should it be so hard to admit that the male-dominated media is guilty of the same? It sickens me to think how this can go on. FSTV, LINK TV, BBC America are my sources for news. What has happened to fair/impartial reporting in the USA? Seems like it has given way to "thrill of the moment" sensationalism and lots and lots of talk to justify their own existence (i.e. CNN, MSNBC.)
That being said, there are many strong men who support Hillary because they know that she is the best qualified candidate for President that we have. May God bless them. I know their women do.
Posted by: Katie S | May 19, 2008 at 11:30 PM
I don't have any problem voting for a woman for President-just not this one. Do people really think because she was first lady for 8 miserable years she would be a good president!! The Clintons should give up and let the Democrats unite and get on with the business of defeating McCain.
Posted by: terry | May 19, 2008 at 10:35 PM
Not sure where Mary has been the last few weeks since Mr. Obama used the term "sweetie" but it's not ok, as you want people to think the political machismo is saying. Otherwise, he wouldn't still be apologizing for it. Additionally to the woman who said the Mr. Obama was taking the Demo. nod from Mrs. Clinton has not thought it out. He can't take what the voters don't give. If he wins is because he was voted in, either by popular or the electorial college, not because he "took" it.
Posted by: Victoria M | May 19, 2008 at 03:23 PM
Yes, and racism hurts Obama and ageism hurts McCain and fattism hurts Al Gore - we are all victims, the great Democratic excuse.
Posted by: Crockoer | May 19, 2008 at 02:11 PM
Naomi - you are absolutely correct that sexism exists. It would be foolish for anyone to even try & assert that it doesn't.
However, to jump to the inevitable conclusion that Hillary's failure was SOLELY attributable to sexism is a completely ridiculous oversimplification.
I've read numerous articles similar to Sunday's which discuss the subtle misogyny that has been demonstrated. They make compelling points and have numerous examples.
But, in the end, a theme of these articles is that:
A) Their politics are very similar
B) Sexism exists in America
C) Barack is now leading
and, therefore,
D) The reason for the difference is obviously sexism
Unfortunately, these articles never seem to address the possibility that, despite the obvious examples of sexism by some people, many Obama supporters may actually have non-sexist reasons for supporting him (or non-sexist reasons for not supporting her).
For example, perhaps Obama's just simply more Charismatic than Clinton. That's not a function of sexism (Bill Clinton was more charismatic than Bob Dole, even though both were males). It certainly shouldn't be the only reason to support a candidate, but if their "politics are very similar", wouldn't that be an important consideration?
There seems to be some silent "reverse sexism" in that some woman want to "forgive" some of Hillary's political faults, and attribute her slipping solely to "sexism". Gender certainly shouldn't be a limiting factor, but it also shouldn't be an advancing factor either.
It's not like Hillary has been completely downtrodden in politics. Was the fact that she ran away with the NYS Senatorial race (vs. two males) a function of sexism? Did she wipe out a pretty qualified white male (Edwards) because of sexism? The fact is, she has progressed pretty far in politics, but just because she's not getting past THIS PARTICULAR male candidate (with generally the same politics, a bit more charisma, and dealing with his own biases), now that is attributed solely to sexism.
It's just a little too convenient to blame this all on gender bias. Again, this is not to say such bias is non-existent, but I think that the impact of it is overstated (and Clinton's own liabilities / Obama's assets are being understated).
And when things get too extreme, you start finding sexism in too many places, such as in Edwards' endorsement speech -
You wrote "He (Edwards) spoke about Hillary Clinton's strong candidacy and how he very much admired her but before it was over he was saying, "But there is only one man...." and "There is only one man..." If this isn't sexism right up in your face, then I don't know what is!"
Edwards didn't say "Hillary ran a good campaign, but only men can do the job." You conveniently truncated his speech to fit your notion.
He said of Clinton - "It is hard to go out there and fight and speak up when the odds turn against you. What she has shown is strength and character. ... She is a leader in this country not because of her husband but because of what she has done.”
But you want to believe solely that his nomination of Obama is ONLY about gender bias and skew his words. Perhaps it had something to do with Edwards' fierce difference of opinion with Clinton on lobbyist contributions.
So if you want to go vote for McCain because some (but certainly not the majority) of Obama's supporters have demonstrated some sexism, it is certainly your perogative.
But I hope you're not missing the irony of voting for an anti-choice candidate to protest against sexism among some segments of a pro-choice candidate's base. As if supporting McCain is a reasonable answer - because I'm sure none of his supporters would bash Clinton or have ever called her a "b!tch".
Posted by: ElmaGolf | May 19, 2008 at 12:45 PM
We will have a choice of being "hung or shot" in the coming elections,--vote for an ultra-liberal, or vote for a mock conservative whose party has abandoned conservative principles, borrowing and spending money faster than liberals and jumping into a bloody morass with both feet.
Posted by: Don H | May 19, 2008 at 12:00 PM
Why is it sexism if one doesn't vote for Hillary? I'm not voting for her strictly based on her lack of experience. Just because she knows where the bathroom is in the White House doesn't make her Presidential material. Her lack of doing anything meaninful for NYS is a huge issue. She's not a good senator period. People don't like her because of what she believes not her gender.
Posted by: Dave | May 19, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Look at the Sunday Buffalo News, specifically the "how they voted" section. Notice that Senator Clinton abstained from voting on everything but the stupid, public-relations based measure involving the petroleum reserve.
I'm not voting for Clinton because she's been a useless senator, not because of her gender.
Posted by: Rust Belt Catholic | May 19, 2008 at 11:06 AM
fcsanders wrote: "Dislike for Hillary has absolutely nothing to do with her gender it has everything to do with her politics and her personality. Her socialism is clear for anyone with a brain to see and people do not want America turned into a socialistic republic. Her elite personality which screams at you, 'I know better than you how to run your life' turns people off completely.We do not want a socialistic elitist running this country."
You really don't get it, do you? There are quite a few Americans who really do want America turned into a socialistic republic. They want us to become just like (and subservient to) Europe.
To them, the Constitution is nothing more than a piece of paper written by a bunch of old aristocrats whose views have no place in the 21st century.
There are quite a few Americans that want the government to collect more and more in taxes and redistribute the wealth to the illegals, to the people that don't want to work, to the spotted owls, to the silver fish, etc.
As for the few of us left who don't want to become Europe, we're an endangered species that the rest of Americans are working to make extinct.
Posted by: Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II | May 19, 2008 at 08:50 AM
Mary wrote: "I am a republican woman, who is a supporter of John McCain. Yet I found myself rooting for Hilary after viewing the sexism against her. I was offended that she was ostracized for crying, but Obama can call someone sweetie, and it's okay."
Well, first of all, I'm sorry that you're a Republican but I guess we all make foolish choices once in a while: yours just happens to be choosing to belong to one of the two sides of the same coin (the other side being Democrat) that is bringing the United States to its end.
Second, if you believe Hillary's tears were real then I've got some ocean-front property in New Mexico to sell you. She's a carpetbagger, an opportunist, and (insert negative adjectives here). And, what's worse, is that so many New Yorkers were stupid enough to vote her into the Senate! What's the matter, people of New York, is there no one who is FROM NEW YORK capable of representing you in the Senate? What is it with you people and your penchant for carpetbaggers from out-of-state?
Third, why is it wrong for Obama to say "sweetie" but it's okay for women right here in Western New York to say similar things to men they don't even know?
Why don't you just admit that Hillary is not exactly a shining example of womanhood and stop whining about her being treated like the man she so desperately wants to be.
What was that old song from the 1930s? "Masculine women, feminine men; which is the rooster, which is the hen? It's hard to tell 'em apart today..."
Posted by: Chancellor Carlyle Roberts, II | May 19, 2008 at 08:38 AM
Barack Dukakas Obama can squeak by against one of the most hated women in the country. The landslide wins that Hillary gets aren't votes for Hillary they are against Dukakas Obama. What a shame that the press didn't expose Obama 4 months ago but I guess it's good for McCain ,,he will win 45 states. Obama thinks there are 57 states,,if McCain made that gaff Obama would be calling him an old man. The rush to annoint Dukakas Obama will backfire in a route for Republicans, I can only imagine the October surprise.
Emily the mention of his purple lips isn't too cool it's a pigment problem he can't help it.
Posted by: karen | May 18, 2008 at 09:17 PM
It is the same old, same old, an incompetent male gets ahead of an experienced female. Females will always be second class citizens. Obama bin LaLa is a SHAM!!!
I can't wait to see and hear some more of his purple lip screw ups(yikes! those purple lips!) Hey this is not American Idol we are voting on people! We are voting for the nominee to become the President of the United States of America, really thought I had to remind everyone. Obama bin LaLa puts on a good performance and the dummies in this country bought his act!
Posted by: Frosty | May 18, 2008 at 06:34 PM
It's not sexism; it's sour grapes. Hillary Clinton's gender has nothing to do with why she will lose the nomination. On the contrary, it is how poorly her campaign was organized and managed, her much lauded "experience" that resulted in a failed UHC plan in the '90s, the exportation of millions of American jobs by way of NAFTA (and the exploitation of foreign labor) and her irresponsible vote authorizing a war that will cost us more than a trillion dollars and has already claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and, quite simply, her deceitfulness. When contrasted with a candidate with the swagger and integrity of Barack Obama, she becomes the epitome of the old politics, the Washington insider, that we have seen too many times.
The people quoted in this article are an embarrassment to the feminist movement. Blindly following a candidate simply because of his or her gender is the antithesis of the strive for gender equality. I long for a female President, just not this one, and not at the cost of a great candidate like Barack Obama. Give me someone who can stand out on her own merits, and not her nouveau aristocratic surname, her gobs of cash or her gender. Give me Kathleen Sebellius, Janet Napolitano, hell, even Nancy Pelosi in 2016 and I'll be happy to campaign for them.
Posted by: Emily | May 18, 2008 at 05:36 PM
When a television anchor says that it would be just terrible to see a woman age right before your very eyes, it's sexism.
When Hillary nutcrackers are being sold, it's sexism.
When you can go to Obama's website and see a link to a site where "Bro's Before Ho's" mugs, caps, tee shirts are sold, it's clearly sexism. And this from a man who might be our next president. Lord deliver us!
And he with a wife and two young daughters!
And has the media been discussing and writing about Obama's male parts? I think not!
The media has very clearly given Obama a pass no matter what he does or says. Let Clinton make one little wrong move and the media is all over her with criticism.
The so-called Democratic Party leaders have stood silently watching this sexism take place and have said nothing. Obama, instead of objecting to the sexism, has egged it on and played it for all it's worth to his advantage.
The fact is that if the American working class people had known four months ago the information about Obama that is known today, he would NOT be the presumptive Democratic nominee. When John Edwards gave his endorsement of Obama on Wednesday evening just so the "good old boys" could steal Hillary Clinton's thunder for giving him a thrashing in West Virginia...he spoke about Hillary Clinton's strong candidacy and how he very much admired her but before it was over he was saying, "But there is only one man...." and "There is only one man..." If this isn't sexism right up in your face, then I don't know what is!
Under normal circumstances, I would have had no problem with voting for either Obama or Clinton, but I cannot in all consciousness support a man who shows such a lack of character and such disrespect for women.
If Obama is the Democratic nominee, I will cast my vote for the better man, Republican John McCain.
The bottomline is: The sexism that has reared its ugly head during this 2008 primary campaign is not only an assault on Hillary Clinton but an attack on the rights and equal treatment of all women - young and old.
Women deserved a level playing field and clearly it was not given! A woman who has twice the experience is losing to a man who has a resume so thin you can hardly see it. Sexism is alive and well in America...
Many, many women are hopping mad about this, and...
Mr. Obama... that's a BIG problem "sweetie."
Posted by: Naomi | May 18, 2008 at 04:52 PM
Barack is more woman like than Hillary. If he steps outta line Michelle will slap him upside the head right quick. Michelle wears the pants in that relationship, she supported the family until the last few years and she will never let him forget it, her word is the last word and that's for sure. Remember Bill Clintons fairytale remark ? Michelle was asked what she thought about it,,,she said it made me mad I wanted to gouge his eyes out,,,, yikes,,, I can't imagine any first lady ever using such words,,,she's one mean motor scooter.
Posted by: carl | May 18, 2008 at 04:04 PM
How ridiculous to claim that the reason for Hillary's falling popularity is sexism. She is running against the first black man to contend. Is he leading because of race? I don't think so. Cut out the labels and look at the person. Hillary is not the right person for the job, not because she is a woman but because of what she represents: a candidate who changes her "spots" to suit the circumstance, who claims to have more experience from her role as first lady than she really has, who has not done much for us in WNY as a senator. She carpetbagged her way into New York from Arkansas to use her Senate seat as a jumping off point to run for the presidency. Well, maybe it won't work. Many of us have had enough of any Clinton. Let the right woman come along, and she will get the votes. Also let the media concentrate more on the issues instead of meaningless gossip, and we will know the candidates' qualifications and positions much better.
Posted by: Sandra | May 18, 2008 at 02:40 PM
Nope. Not buying it. A gaggle of women approached a reporter lamenting the "rampant sexism" targeting their candidate? Yeah...right. How did they know the reporter was a reporter? Like the cheating daddy question (allegedly) hurled at Chelsea a few weeks back, this too reeks of a "left-wing conspiracy".
Also not buying it because, as has been proven over and over and over, Hillary Clinton will stop at nothing. She will distort truth, deny reality, play the race/sex cards, and outright lie to obtain what she wants. She will even stay in a (for lack of a better word) 'marriage' that absolutely undermines everything an honest, stable, competent, decent woman...is supposed to stand for.
We don't like Hillary. Period. She presents as a carpet-baggin' get-mine-anyway-I-can narcissist, whom will exploit even her own child for a shot at The Big One.
One thing she sure was right about, though. She certainly is NOT a Tammy Wynette. Tammy, we like.
Posted by: Christian N. Proudofit | May 18, 2008 at 01:48 PM
I don't think sexism caused Hillary to apparently lose the Democratic nomination. Neither the polls nor the reporting have been able to make that case. And the Clintons have way too much negative political baggage to sustain that argument.
But to suggest that sexism played absolutlely no part in her camaign is to believe America has become so unbiased that it can ignore a candidates sex (or skin color for that matter). And that contention I would suggest is simply unsustainable.
Our history suggests otherwise. Any woman running for president still creates some doubt among some voters. There are still people who continue to have difficulty believing a woman can be commander in chief, or believe she won't be too emotional in a crisis or can be taken seriously by other government leaders. America hasn't become the shining city on the hill after all.
It will probably take a few more women running for and being president before the fact a person is a woman becomes an irrelevancy. That point hasn't quite been reached as of yet.
Posted by: Barton Keyes | May 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Sexism has nothing to do with Hillary's collapse in the Democratic primaries. She ran a horrible campaign and isn't used to tough questions being thrown her way like the one on illegal immigrants getting driver's licenses in NY compliments of ex Gov Spitzer. New York papers treated her like "her highness", especially the Buffalo News. The longer the campaign drew out, the longer we saw the lies about Bosnia, NAFTA and the the 200,000 jobs in upstate she promised. She voted for the Iraq War knowing her husband was hawking the same old WMD story when he was president. She's still in the race thanks more than likely to Republicans crossing over in Indiana and Texas voting for her just to mess around in the Democrat Primary. The more people see of her, the less they like of her, especially younger voters who still remember the Lewinsky days. A lot of people in her own party (Dean, Kerry, Richardson) resented the fact that the presidency was hers by her and Bill's attitudes. You can look at the situation in two ways dreaming that at least you expect she'll fight for your Bills to stay in Buffalo and keep bringin in those thousands of new jobs into WNY. Or, you'll wake up out of your stupor and see she'll be busy planning another run in 2012 while you folks in Buffalo and WNY keep on slowly declining away. (Don't expect Michelle Obama to forget who supported Barack and who didn't and NY didn't).
Posted by: Texas Kid | May 18, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Sexism, schmexism. That;s fossil talk. Hillary is a phony and a liar, and that's why this woman won't vote for her. In 1992, she was in our faces with "I'm not just sitting around baking cookies...Tammy Wynette...blah, blah, blah", then in 1998 she became a doormat on the world stage for an outrageously philandering husband.
Becoming a horrible example to young women and humiliated women everywhere, she swallowed the humiliation just for an easy shot at a Senate seat in a liberal state. Phony. She got into national office on a man's coattails, period, and all the experience she claims came either from first lady or as a failed policy maker in her husband's administration.
Her Senate experience may count for something, but it hasn't been lengthy, and again, earned only at the expense of her self-respect. It's my opinion that she continues to stay with a cheat in a sham marriage because she thinks he can aid her candidacy. With a history of made-up sniper stories and convictions that blow around like dry leaves in the wind, she deserves the failure she is reaping.
Young women should have as an example a woman who made her own way, carved her own experience and can stand on her own two feet. We have plenty of examples of strong, self-made women, and Hillary is not one of them.
I have no use for people who vote for OR against gender, race or any other inherit characteristic. They don't deserve a vote. I had to laugh at a co-worker last week who, with a straight face, opined that "women" were too unstable emotionally to run the world due to hormone fluctuations. I reminded her of the endless series of male politicians who have been brought down in recent years due to their inability to control their own hormonal urges. Humans are humans.
These are tough times, with scary bad guys in the world, and what we need are strong, steady wise leaders with self-control, a backbone and real world experience. I will vote for anyone who convinces me she/he can be that leader.
Posted by: adair | May 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM
If Hillary loses, it's sexism. If Obama loses, it's racism. If McCain loses, it's ageism. Folks will always find a nefarious reason for their favorite's political loss.
Posted by: Don H | May 18, 2008 at 11:51 AM
It's a MANS world ..DEAL with it!
Posted by: John | May 18, 2008 at 10:24 AM
I know a lot of men, who won't vote for Clinton because she's a woman, and a lot of whites who won't vote for Obama because he's black. Then again, a lot of people I know, won't vote for McCain, because of his age.
Make of that what you will. I know what I make of it. Sexism and racism and agism are all alive and doing well in the land of equality.
Posted by: Karen | May 18, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Clinton, the victim of sexism?? What is this -- Gloria Steinem circa 1975? Sorry, no -- it's Jerry Zremski, 2008!! Talk about being out of touch!!
Ha, ha ha!! Sob, sob! The chickens of identity politics have come home to roost, have they? Yup, Barack Obama is an evil, male, sexist bigot! Probbly a racist, too!! Don't vote for him, girls -- you might break a nail!!
Posted by: mike | May 18, 2008 at 09:28 AM
I am a republican woman, who is a supporter of John McCain. Yet I found myself rooting for Hilary after viewing the sexism against her. I was offended that she was ostracized for crying, but Obama can call someone sweetie, and it's okay. Give me a break..as a republican I have always been skeptical of the Media and their bias..now we see it is biased when they want something..like an african american candidate. Hilary gave the campaign everything a democratic candidate should have, and I for one would have favored her as president over Obama. She is the one Democrat who could lead our country in this time of fearsome war.
Posted by: mary | May 18, 2008 at 08:56 AM
Dislike for Hillary has absolutely nothing to do with her gender it has everything to do with her politics and her personality.Her socialism is clear for anyone with a brain to see and people do not want America turned into a socialistic republic.Her elite personality which screams at you,"I know better than you how to run your life" turns people off completely.We do not want a socialistic elitist running this country.Eight years of the crook Bill Clinton was more than enought.
Posted by: fcsanders | May 18, 2008 at 08:42 AM