The people who criticize Maria Cantwell and Hillary Clinton

[pnwmom]

as being "Republican Lite" are the same kind of people who, six years ago, said there was no appreciable difference between Al Gore and George Bush.

Almost all of us understand now how wrong that idea was.

People who call Senators like Maria Cantwell or Hillary Clinton DINO's or "Repub lite" can't be very familiar with their records, which stand in STARK contrast to their Republican opponents.

Or is it sexism that draws such bitter criticism of these women for such positions as their vote to authorize the Iraq war -- even though half of the Democratic Senators followed the advice of Democratic leadership and voted the same way? Why are women Senators so much more likely to be bashed for not having perfect progressive records?

Anyone who really wants to know where Cantwell stands should stop listening to her disgruntled primary opponents and read her actual positions. Here's a small sample, from her website, www.mariacantwell.com.

On Iraq, for example, she supported the Levin-Reed amendment, and calls for bringing troops home beginning this year:

"Maria believes we must get Iraqis on their feet and U.S. troops home. She voted for the Levin-Reed Amendment to encourage the Iraqis to take complete control of their own future. The amendment recognizes the increasing number of Iraqi troops being trained but calls on those troops to take the lead so U.S. forces can be redeployed beginning this year. The Bush Administration must do more to garner international support for the new Iraqi government. Maria has called for a U.S. Special Envoy to reengage the international community on the future of Iraq . She voted for the Biden Amendment to affirm that the U.S should not stay in Iraq indefinitely, it should not construct permanent bases in that country, and the U.S. should not seek to exercise control over Iraqi oil. "

Respecting Privacy in the Patriot Act
Maria believes the federal government has a responsibility to respect our rights and honor our privacy. That’s why she supports legislation to roll back provisions of the PATRIOT Act that allow the federal government to confiscate the papers, electronic records and equipment of libraries and booksellers, as part of open-ended government investigations of American citizens. She believes that government investigators must be required to show a connection between the records they are seeking and a suspected terrorist or spy. Maria also supports the Library, Bookseller, and Personal Records Privacy Act, which would amend the Patriot Act to protect personal privacy involving library, bookseller and other records, while allowing law enforcement to protect national security.


National Security Administration (NSA) Wire Tapping
"Maria believes it is wrong and illegal to wire tap without a warrant. We need to make sure our intelligence programs and officials are getting the job done of protecting the U.S. and maintaining our national security. Maria believes that Congressional checks and balances are needed to make sure that the oversight of our intelligence programs is effective. We must protect both national security and civil liberties."


Choice

" Like most Americans, Maria believes that we must work to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies through education and family planning. But she also believes that our Constitution protects a woman's right to privacy, and that this constitutional right encompasses the decision of whether to terminate a pregnancy. Maria has been a proud cosponsor of the Freedom of Choice Act which declares the fundamental right of every woman to bear a child and terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability (and after when necessary to protect her life or health). Maria supports life education programs that include contraception. Maria has worked to require hospitals to offer victims of sexual assault free emergency contraception. Maria continues to work to require health plans to provide coverage for contraceptive drugs, devices and services at the same level as other care. Maria supported the Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001, which would have lifted the "global gag rule” on non-profit organizations. Maria believes states should be allowed to provide family planning under Medicaid, and to overturn existing Pentagon policy that restricts female service members’ reproductive rights in the case of rape or incest."

On many other issues, such as those related to the environment and energy resources, and gay rights, Cantwell's positions are diametrically opposed to those of her Republican opponent.

I hope that those who opposed her in the primary will take the time now to seriously compare her record to what we could expect if the Republican wins. If they do, they'll see that the choice couldn't be more clear.

[brentspeak]

1. Good post

k & r

[acmejack]

2. Not even fair playing the "Sexism" card!

It is their politics not their sex! I would call them the same names if they were men & I feel you know that to be the case! I deeply resent you pulling that misogynist card out & will tell you right out front it cheapens your entire argument!

So please, consider editing it and removing that portion. I basically agree with the rest of your post, I think both of those women could go a long way to getting a lot more progressive and doing a lot more to truly represent the American People. I think anyone would agree Cantwell for all her faults is far better than her opponent, OK? There's not much to argue there.

So lets not conflate misogyny and disliking female DLC candidates shall we? It is a cheap tactic and totally unworthy of any poster on this board.

[Captain Hilts]

4. People EXPECT Democratic women to be more liberal than the men.

So, the sexism comment is valid here.

Even among Democrats, because older men have often served in the military, we expect them to take more conservative stances on some issues, such as foreign policy.

I was in polling and these expectations are common. Fair? Accurate? Not necessarily, but they're there.

[pnwmom]

7. I think you're exactly on the money here.

People expect women to be more liberal and are therefore more bitter when women office-holders "fail" them.

And it's also a Mommy thing, I think. To many people, Hillary and Maria don't seem Mommy-ish enough. As opposed to, for example, Patty Murray, whose record is similar to Cantwell's (a 90% at Progressive Punch compared to Cantwell's 88%), but who comes across as more warm and cuddly.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

6. Sorry, I disagree. You, personally, may not be sexist, but that

does not prove that sexism isn't a serious factor here.

Why don't you name some male Senators, with equally progressive credentials, who are bashed as frequently as Cantwell and Hillary Clinton?

Then I'll reconsider.

Here, I'll make it easy for you:

According to Progressive Punch, Hillary Clinton is the 10th most liberal person in the Senate. The following male senators are all within 2% points of Hillary’s 91% score on Progressive issues:

Carl Levin (93%), Frank Lautenberg (93%), Barack Obama (92%), Robert Menendez (92%), Tom Harkin (91%), Daniel Akaka (91%), Patrick Leahy (91%), Mark Dayton (90%), Charles Schumer (90%), Russell Feingold (89%).

How many of them routinely get bashed as DINO’s?

Meanwhile, Maria Cantwell’s score is 88%, which puts her among:

Charles Schumer (90%) Mark Dayton (90%), Russell Feingold (89%), Ron Wyden (88%) Christopher Dodd (87%), John Kerry (86%), and John Rockefeller (86%).

How many of them get bashed for being Republicans in disguise?


And Cantwell’s record is even MORE impressive than some because she’s not in a blue state, she’s in a state that’s divided right down the middle – a perennial swing state.

[acmejack]

You know I can only speak for myself.

I'll not be maneuvered into a position of A. Defending myself against claims that I am a woman hating SOB because of political beliefs, if some wish to assume that, so be it. B. Defend the rest of world because of the DLC warhawk problems of your anointed candidates. If you choose to believe all their political problems are due to woman hting mofo's so be that too. Interesting that Cantwell's Dem challenger was female, as was Fienstein's, & many other warhawk dems. I look at all the Democratic woman candidates and can hardly say the misogynism is present in this camp.

Perhaps it is an issue in the larger National consciousness, but to claim it is a problem in our party just is not valid. We have a House Leader that is a Woman who is in line to be the Speaker. Getting closer to being President all the time surveys show that Americans don't have a problem...

[pnwmom]

18. My post was about people who label Clinton and Cantwell unfairly, and

who don't make the same claims about being "DINO's" of men with similar voting records.

Cantwell had male challengers by the way, not just female.

And, again, I wasn't making claims about you, personally, being sexist. But the pattern here is pretty clear. In general, women politicians are held to a higher standard on progressive issues than men. (And yes, women can be guilty of sexism, too.)

[spooky3]

20. You make an excellent argument, and the data support you.

[bahrbearian]

33. CantWell bought of mark Wilson $$$$$

[pnwmom]

35. IF that were true

what would that say about Mark Wilson?

I believe Mark Wilson's statements that after he and Cantwell got together, he grew to respect her. And that he was able to act as a spokesman for the people who shared his point of view.

[Captain Hilts]

39. No one said you're a "woman-hating SOB"...

don't 'debate' the way Bush does.

EVERYONE, men AND women have expectations based on sex.

We all do it.

[cascadiance]

24. You are so right! It has nothing to do with "sexism"...

I would support for and vote for Barbara Boxer in a campaign for the presidency in a heartbeat. I do now support Feingold more at this point, but I see that as because he seems to be more "electable" and Barbara has been quoted herself as not wanting to run for something she thinks she's not in as good a position to win as someone else might be. But I feel as strongly for her as I would about Feingold. I'd love a ticket with both of them on it, if that could win.

With DLC'ers like Hillary, Cantwell, Feinstein, Lieberman, etc. that is a different story. There's not much different between them and the "liberal" members of the Republican Party like Olympia Snowe, Chafee, etc. They also have "liberal records" of voting which they champion to the voters like Lieberman has. On many of the "non-important" issues (to the corporatists that is), they allow their members to vote closer to their constituencies. But for the important votes they call in their chips, and that is why you have folks like Cantwell having it both ways in not voting for the fillibuster of Alito while voting against him in the *meaningless* vote afterwards, and Clinton being "absent" during the bankruptcy bill vote. Both of these votes mattered a great deal to the corporatist elements of both parties, and that's why they both had the votes to go the corporatist way, whether the Republican mainstream's votes swayed it, or the DLC elements of the Democratic Party swayed it. This has to stop. As long as you have DLC elements controlling a significant amount of the Democratic Party, especially leadership positions, you will NEVER get the VERY necessary (to the people) public financing bill that our country needs so desperately now to get it away from corporate rule.

As for the sexism issue, if you continue to use this, then don't be surprised if the Republicans accuse you of being sexist or racist for not voting for Condi Rice in 2008 too.

I voted for Al Gore in 2000, holding my nose a little. I was tempted to vote for Nader and the greens, but felt it far more important voting against Bush then. I did vote for Medea Benjamin and the Greens against Feinstein then though. Gore at that time was trying to run more with the DLC and be more "not Clinton" instead of running as himself, showing his great attributes of being an environmentalist, etc. which he now is so much better at presenting himself as passionate about. When he took Lieberman most likely because he criticized Clinton as his running mate, or made a BIG deal about bad mouthing the effort to have a Democratic fundraiser at the Playboy mansion instead of just staying away from it and keeping quiet about it, that was what irritated many people like me that he was trying to run using a "formula", kind of like the way Hillary puts herself forward publicly now. But ever since Gore gave his concession speech in that race, where I thought was the first time in a long while I'd heard him speak from his heart and not a "playbook", and he's since distanced himself from the poison of the DLC, I've really come to appreciate Al Gore the human being and the potential leader he is too. A Gore/Feingold ticket I think would be awesome (or a Gore/Boxer too, if that would work out and we can get Ahnuld out so that he wouldn't appoint a Rethug replacement for Boxer).

This isn't about a battle of the Republicans vs. the Democrats. It's more than that. It is about a battle of the people vs. the corporatists. It is a battle against corporate feudalism, which really is already here, though hiding in the shadows now to still masquerade as Democracy since we still have elections (even if that is even a question with the likes of Diebold, etc.). I don't want to wait until they are even more out in the open with corporate feudalism than they are already, and vote it out while we still have time to do so.

That is why I can't bring myself to support folks like Cantwell, Clinton, Feinstein, etc. in the primaries. Keep in mind, where we were most successful in ousting the DLCer was when Lamont beat Liberman, a man, rather than holding some of these women to be similarly accountable this time around.

[Captain Hilts]

3. CORRECT. nt

[Totally Committed]

8. I can tell you you are wrong about that... at least in my case.

I worked hard for Gore in 2000, and even though I had serious doubts about Kerry and his campaign, and said so openly, voted for him in 2004 without hesitation (ABB!)

It is BECAUSE of those two elections that I have come to where I am today -- unwilling and unable to ever again vote for a DINO, especially a one of the DLC persuasion. I DO NOT think there is not difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, I just don't think there is ENOUGH DIFFERENCE betweem the DINO/DLCers and the Republicans any longer.

And I feel, after decades of working for this Party, I have the right to feel that way.

TC

[pnwmom]

9. So these six years of Bush haven't proved to you that there

is a huge difference between Bush and Gore? I give up.

[Totally Committed]

11. Did you even READ what I wrote? I supported Gore 1000%, and

think he has become and outstanding spokesman for this Party!

I DO NOT THINK THERE IS ENOUGH DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HILLARY CLINTON'S DLC POSITIONS AND THOSE OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. She has made it clear on a number of examples of say, war and peace, that she holds their positions almost exactly. Do I think she'd be any better on social issues? WHy should I?... the DLC of which she is a leading member... bows first to their Corporate masters. Why should the little guy expect anything to get better in her government? THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DIFFERENCE. I know that's a difficult distinction to wrap your mind around, but please try.

If Clinton manages to become our nominee, I feel the takeover of this party by quasi-Republicans will be complete and you just won't see me or people like me (and there are PLENTY where I live) who will not be knocking on doors, driving people to the polls, making phone calls or ANYTHING on her behalf. Zero, zip, nada. Our Party will have been swallowed alive and there will be no point. I have never asked ANYONE to vote for a Republican and I won't start now.

TC

[pnwmom]

13. Yes I read your post. Gore was also supported by the DLC.

You're wrong about Hillary's voting record. It is NOWHERE CLOSE to the Republicans.

Progressive Punch puts her voting record on progressive issues at 91%, which makes her the 10th most liberal in the Senate. Meanwhile, the American Conservative Union gives her a 12% on conservative issues (Schumer gets an 8%).

She isn't elected only by the liberals in NYC by the way. She has to manage to get at least some votes upstate, in red country.

[Totally Committed]

30. I realize that Gore was supported by the DLC in 2000... that's how he

got saddled with Lieberman. But, I was a different Democrat back then. I hadn't come to the point I am at at the moment yet. The Kerry nomination and resultant campaign was the absolute END of my support for anyone or anything DLC. He was the most Liberal DLC-er I could think of and, following their campaign signature blueprint, and using their advisors, his campaign was miserable and the stolen election was never contested and I WAS TOTALLY AND UTTERLY TURNED OFF TO THE DLC FOREVER. Katrina ABSOLUTELY TURNED ME OFF COMPETELY to ever again supporting a Corporatist construct in my politcs forever, as well. I was already disgusted with Clinton's terms in office that gave us the DLC-supported Welfare Reform Bill, the Media COnsolidation Bill, and NAFTA, so the Kerry campaign just drove the anti-DLC stake through my heart for once and for all, and I am literally not the same Democrat any longer.

Al Gore does not sound like a DLC-er these days. Were he to run again, we could see if he would allow them to insinuate themselves into his camapaign, and I would make my decision about whether or not to vote for him then.

Until then, I am very pro-Gore these days, because, if he manages to stay away from the DLC and runs, he will be the anti-Hillary. That alone will get hiim my vote.

TC

[mcscajun]

10. You begin your post with a broad-brush smear. I declined to read

the rest of your post, as I take exception to your opening sentences.

I don't know the first thing about Maria Cantwell, so I certainly haven't criticized her, but I don't support Sen. Clinton in her presidential bid. I do certainly hope she wins re-election as New York's Senator, as no Republican I can think of will ever get my support.

I have never been so deluded as to think Gore and Bush had little to differentiate them; I was a vocal opponent of Bush way before he won nomination for the 2000 election, and was happy to support Gore. Yet I will feel free to criticize Sen. Clinton in future if I feel it warranted.

[pnwmom]

12. There's a huge difference between criticizing Sen. Clinton or anyone

else for taking certain positions versus labelling them as a DINO or a "Repub lite." My OP was responding to the "broad brush smear" I see leveled so often at certain women -- and not at men with similar voting records.

[havocmom]

15. Yeah, nobody around here was hard on Lieberman

or Miller. :rofl:

[pnwmom]

16. That is my point. Senators Clinton and Cantwell are far more progressive

than Lieberman, and yet they are consistently smeared with the same labels.

If you were being FAIR, you would compare their treatment to male Senators with similar records.

For example:

According to Progressive Punch, Hillary Clinton is the 10th most liberal person in the Senate. The following male senators are all within 2% points of Hillary’s 91% score on Progressive issues:

Carl Levin (93%), Frank Lautenberg (93%), Barack Obama (92%), Robert Menendez (92%), Tom Harkin (91%), Daniel Akaka (91%), Patrick Leahy (91%), Mark Dayton (90%), Charles Schumer (90%), Russell Feingold (89%).

How many of them routinely get bashed as DINO’s?

Meanwhile, Maria Cantwell’s score is 88%, which puts her among:

Charles Schumer (90%) Mark Dayton (90%), Russell Feingold (89%), Ron Wyden (88%) Christopher Dodd (87%), John Kerry (86%), and John Rockefeller (86%).

How many of them get bashed for being Republicans in disguise?

As for "Miller" I can't comment on him because I can't find a "Miller" in the Senate, and there are several in the House.

[havocmom]

26. And you MISSED my point. Lieberman was hounded for YEARS here as a DINO

You missed all that? A-mazing! Simply amazing!

I have also noticed many remarks that Obama is a disappointment and a disguiesd DINO

[pnwmom]

31. I didn't miss your point. But Lieberman has a much more conservative

record than Sens. Clinton or Cantwell, so comparing the treatment of him to the way they are treated isn't fair.( I listed a number of politicians in #6 who do have comparable records, if that helps.)

But you're right, compared to the AVERAGE Republican (who scores lower than a 15% on the Progressive Punch scale), even Lieberman doesn't look like a conservative.

As for Obama, you may be right -- and in that case, since he certainly does have a very progressive voting record, the cause for the name-calling may have something to do with another "ism."

I guess I should have said, show me the white, male politician with a comparable voting record who gets as frequently bashed (as Clinton and Cantwell) as a DINO.

[havocmom]

44. Ah, so now it isn't just about women?

THAT is just the point some of us were making in responding to your OP. NOT about gender so much as just about people.... hmmm, sexism? Not quite.

[pnwmom]

56. No, it isn't just about sexism, as I said.

It also appears to be about racism.

Two sides of the same coin, though.

[havocmom]

71. racism not mentioned in OP?

Arguement seems to be changing as it is disputed.

Maybe people just don't like politicians with HAIR?

Perhaps it is an eye color thing?

Or maybe it is politics,m policy and agenda we disagree with politicians about? Thought that was OK in a democracy and all

[pnwmom]

79. Someone brought Obama up to me and I responded.

That's what happens when people actually listen to each other. I acknowledged that the other poster was right and that there was a progressive male Senator who was also being unfairly called a DINO. And lo and behold: he's an African American.

Surprise, surprise.

[Captain Hilts]

41. Lieberman doesn't have the progressive record Hil has. nt

[Pithy Cherub]

53. so you make a broad brush smear and expect to

have your opinion taken seriously. Continue the joke...:rofl:

[havocmom]

75. Not only expects to be taken seriously, but seems to expect agreement

without leway.

Bet the OP looks nothing like your mommy or mine. ;)

[pnwmom]

80. "Bet the OP looks nothing like your mommy or mine."

What's that supposed to mean?

[havocmom]

14. Agree. To suggest that dislike of Hillary Clinton is sexism

is, in its self a form of sexism.

I dislike her as a presidential candidate for reasons that have nothing to do with gender, ingrained ideas of gender, or expectations of gender. I dislike her as a presidential candidate because I dislike the idea of ANY senator as candidate. Senators do not fair well in presidential races. It isn't about gender, it's about how easy it is to twist and take out of content the legislation ANY given senator has had to hold their nose and vote on. That record WILL BE distorted and used as a powerful tool against ANY of them.

It is unlikely we can take the White House with a Senator. And we need all the DEM Senators to stay on the Hill anyway. Bring in a candidate with proven ADMINISTRATIVE record for the ADMINISTRATION part of the government. Might just work better. There have been some DEM govs elected in recent memory. Been a long time since a Senator moved into the Oval Office.

Am I sexist because I prefer some Governor over Hillary as standard barer? How does that apply to my preference for Dean over Kerry the last time out?

[pnwmom]

17. I'm not saying it's sexist to prefer another candidate, or another

candidate's positions over Sen. Clinton's. I have no idea who I will support for the Presidential primary. And your reasons for being against a candidate from the Senate are completely neutral -- i.e.,, not sexist.

However, what I AM suggesting is that the fact that Clinton and Cantwell are so often labelled unfairly as DINO's or Republicans-in-disguise -- while male Senators and Representatives with COMPARABLE or worse records (on progressive issues) are not similarly labelled -- may be due, in a significant number of cases -- to sexism.

If you'll note, in the OP I wasn't talking about the Presidential election at all -- I was talking about how the records of Cantwell and Clinton are often misrepresented as being much more conservative than they are. Both of them are up for re-election as Senators NOW and both of them deserve to have their voting records presented accurately.

[Frances]

19. You make good points

I also agree that some people complain about Hillary Clinton and Maria Cantwell because they aren't stereotypical female "mommy" types. They approach the world in an intellectual, rational manner, not through a warm, fuzzy screen.

Unfortunately, people often don't realize their own biases are blinding them to the consequences of those biases. I'll never forget how upset I was with Cohen, a columnist for the Washington Post, who wrote about a trip to Texas to meet Gov. Bush in 2000. He praised Bush's personality and criticized Gore's. I think other journalists have confessed to the same reaction. I think they were biased toward what they thought was a warm personality as opposed to a cold personality. The same thing happened with Kerry. I thought then and I think now that Bush is the coldest president we have ever had. I think that both Gore and Kerry have warm hearts, but approach the world in a rational manner. They are also more introverted than extroverted, which is a definite handicap in politics.

[pnwmom]

22. Yes -- introverts often have very warm hearts,

but because of their introversion, it isn't obvious.

And then a narcissistic extrovert like Bush can turn on the charm -- when it suits him. But underneath he's as cold as ice. And as brittle.

[ToeBot]

21. You're Right! There is no legitimate reason to critcise...

either Clinton or Cantwell so it must be a plot hatched by those insidious Greens or the expression of the sexism rampant in the Democratic Party. Pardon me while I take my verdant and misogynistic ass out of this train wreck of a thread.

[pnwmom]

23. You're twisting what I said. There's a huge difference between

criticizing a politician's positions, which is entirely necessary and legitimate -- and unfairly characterizing her record ( ie. smearing her as a DINO or Republican in disguise) and holding her to a higher standard than men are held to.

No one yet has been able to show me the male politician with a comparably progressive record who is subject to the same kind of DINO-bashing that Sens. Clinton and Cantwell are subjected to.

When someone does, I'll reconsider.

[havocmom]

25. Joe?

Wasn't she planning on campaigning for him? :shrug: He's a DINO with a dick. DEM voters in CT all seemed to concur

[Frances]

27. The last poll I saw said that

33 percent of Dems were supporting Lieberman. That's why Lamont is running all of those turncoat ads--he hopes to get those Dems to vote for him and I hope that they do. I am 100% for Lamont.

[pnwmom]

28. She said she'd campaign for the WINNER of the Democratic

primary. In other words, she would support the choice of the Dem voters in CT. What should she have said? That if he won in a landslide she would still not support him? Wouldn't that have been a slap in the face to the Dems of CT?

He didn't win, so she's not campaigning for him.

[havocmom]

43. Prior to the CT primary, there was talk of her appearing WITH Joe

It did not play well as I recall.

[pnwmom]

57. "there was talk" ???

Are we resorting to rumor-mongering?

[havocmom]

70. Well, since HER people announced the change in plans

hardly a rumor

[pnwmom]

34. Sen. Clinton is supporting Lamont in the election, not Lieberman,

and is donating both money and time.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2006/08/23/lamont_to_meet_friday_in_ny_with_hillary_clinton/

New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton will meet Friday with Democratic Senate candidate Ned Lamont to discuss how she can help his campaign in a three-way race against Sen. Joe Lieberman, now an independent candidate.

"Sen. Clinton looks forward to meeting with Ned Lamont and discussing how she can be helpful to his campaign," Howard Wolfson, Clinton's campaign strategist, said Wednesday.

Tom Swan, Lamont's campaign manager, said Clinton reached out to Lamont on the night of the Democratic primary and later contributed money from her political action committee.

In an upset, Lamont, a political newcomer, defeated Lieberman by about 10,000 votes. He made the incumbent's support of the war in Iraq a central issue and attacked Lieberman as too supportive of President Bush and the Republicans.

SNIP

[ncrainbowgrrl]

65. (off topic)- Cool signature banner- I had no idea that a group like that

even existed. I just forwarded the link to my partner- a gamer and semi political type. This may be an issue that he could get involved in- that would directly affect him...

[leesa]

29. I criticize Hillary for refusing to say the Iraq war is illegal and immoral

and for her corporate whoring. She's one to try to score on stupid issues like flag burning rather than doing what's right.

[pnwmom]

32. Do you often accuse men of "corporate whoring"?

A sexist term if I've ever heard one.

[Totally Committed]

36. I know this wasn't addressed to me, but....

I did a search in GDP for the phrase "Corporate Whore". Five threads popped up... One was about Rham Emmanuel, one was about McCain/Lieberman, two were about Bush, and one was about the Dog/Anna Nicole Smith stories clogging up the airwaves at the moment.

I didn't see much sexism there. (Being an ardent feminist I notice things like that.) Maybe you're just very protectice and sensitive about Hillary since she seems to be your candidate of choice?

TC

[pnwmom]

37. Actually, she is not my candidate of choice in the Presidential election.

I have NO idea who I will vote for in the primary, but I'll vote for the Democratic nominee in the general, whoever that person is.(In general, I'm going to be supporting the candidate who I think has the greatest chance of beating the Republican. And it's too early to know who that will be yet.)

But I am a strong supporter of Maria Cantwell, and I have noticed the frequent name calling that occurs here with regard to Cantwell, Clinton, and Feinstein -- but not to male Senators with COMPARABLE records.

Except possibly, as someone above pointed out, with Obama. He apparently is also held to a higher standard. I wonder why? It certainly couldn't be because of another "ism" -- could it?

[Captain Hilts]

52. Nor mine. nt

[pnwmom]

38. I searched DU dating back to the first of the year,

and the poster did not use the term "corporate whoring" on DU to refer to anyone except for Hillary, just now.

I think people should be extremely cautious with that term. It's sexist no matter how it's used.

[Totally Committed]

42. Sorry, my bad on both counts, then...

peace to you.

TC

[Warren Stupidity]

54. The phrase is not sexist.

What would be sexist is to assume that all whores are women, they aren't. Searching GD for all uses of corporate and whore over the last year popped up 654 hits. The most typical usage appears to be 'corporate media whore' and that term is applied to anyone, regardless of sex, who appears to be mouthing obvious bullshit in order to keep their cushy job, that is they are trading their soul for money and power, which I believe is the general meaning of 'corporate whore'. Even in usage other than the corporate media whore, corporate whores do not appear to be gender biased in GD. Barak Obama for example pops up, as does our late DINO Joe Lieberman. Hillary Clinton shows up, in one post I read, alongside Chuck Schumer, both labelled whores for their lack of spine over Bolton. The DLC is frequently characterized as the source of corporate whoredom in the Democratic Party. I freely admit that my research was less than exhaustive and that there may in fact be a bias toward characterizing women as corporate whores over men that was not apparent from the ten minutes I spend browsing posts. Go ahead and prove your case. Meanwhile I will continue to use the phrase for anyone, regardless of gender, who has in my opinion sold themselves, their principles, their soul, for money and power.

[pnwmom]

55. "Corporate whore" is a loaded, sexist term regardless of whether

certain DU'ers apply it to men as well as to women.

Yes, there are male prostitutes, BUT the dictionary definition of "whore" applies to women only. So calling a man a "corporate whore" means you're calling him " a woman who performs (sexual) favors for money." It adds an extra degree of insult, of course, to call a man a name that is associated with something female.

A whore is a female, just as a harlot and a strumpet is female. Even the term "male prostitutes" requires the addition of the adjective "male" because otherwise the term is understood to generally refer to a female.

www.dictionary.com

"whore"

1. A woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.

[Warren Stupidity]

66. Depends on your dictionary.

Same link next dictionary:

whore (h�r, hr) Pronunciation Key
n.
A prostitute.
A person considered sexually promiscuous.
A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain

"whore." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 24 Sep. 2006. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/whore>

So I say you chose the sexist dictionary version, the one that assumes that all whores are female. Although it was the one at the top of the page.

Regardless, the term 'corporate whore' is exactly within the clear meaning of "A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain" and is completely gender neutral. Conflating that with the other usage as in 'she is a alut and a whore' in order to pronounce us sexist is silly.

If there is a bias against Clinton it is most likely due to the fact that she has already been annointed the contender in chief by the compliant media before the 08 campaign has even started. Those of us who are horrified by the positions she has staked out for herself are even more horrified that she is being thrust onto us as the winner before we have even had a campaign.

[pnwmom]

67. The term may be evolving to refer to men

but it originated solely to describe women, and the term "corporate whore" is deliberately meant to connote images of trading favors for personal gain as well as of "sluttiness."

The fact is that, even though some dictionaries may now have evolved to a broader use of the word, the word "whore" has thousands of years of history in connoting a certain type of woman, not a man. And when it is used to describe a woman, such as Hillary Clinton, the connection is even clearer. Tell me, why is it that we don't use the word "corporate gigolo" as a gender neutral term? The fact is, we don't use it at all, because it doesn't carry the same degree of contempt.

This is something like using the word "gay" as a substitute for "lame," which many people do. When people first started using the word that way, it clearly wasn't a neutral term -- the people who used it were also disparaging gays. Now it's used so commonly, some people want to argue that it has lost any negative connotation. Untrue! Because the word, as in the phrase "gay homework" had its roots in a word that had come to signify "homosexual," it disparages gay people to use it to describe things that are unpleasant. No matter how innocent the speaker may claim to be.

And it disparages ALL women when a word is thrown around like "corporate whore" or when pop songs call women "ho's."

[Warren Stupidity]

88. The term has evolved

and it means exactly "A person considered as having compromised principles for personal gain" as stated, at least when I use it in the context of 'dlc new democrat corporate whore' or 'media whore'.

But we are not going to get anywhere with this.

[pnwmom]

90. Just because people like you use it does not mean it's inoffensive

to most women, or that the term doesn't carry a special slap when it's used to label a female politician.

[Warren Stupidity]

50. Stop it with the facts already.

That is totally unfair.

[havocmom]

51. Since there are more men in position to do it, we DO accuse them

and, there are male whores, it is NOT just a term refering to females.

Gads, one could get hurt with all the jerking knees around here.

[pnwmom]

60. The #1 dictionary definition refers to women only.

When people use it to refer to men, it is a kind of double insult, because that would be like calling them a "sissy" in addition to implying that they trade favors for money.

www.dictionary.com

"whore"

1. a woman who engages in promiscuous sexual intercourse, usually for money; prostitute; harlot; strumpet.


As I'm sure you know, the word "gigolo" applies to men. But when the word prostitute is used for men, it requires the modifier "male." And men are never called "harlots" and "strumpets."

But for some reason, even though the vast majority of Senators who take money for favors are MEN, the term "corporate gigolos" has just never gotten off the ground. "Corporate whore" apparently has a more satisfying ring to it.

[havocmom]

69. In real life... Jimmy Jeff is a whore

and we all know it.

There is enough to be angry about without spending a lot of time and effort trying to be offended by everything everyone else says. Life got much more enjoyable for me when I stopped trying to be offended by everything whether I got other's intent right or not.

Have a swell week. Hope something nice comes your way. Really. But I doubt you will belive my good intent.

[pnwmom]

82. I'm supposed to believe your good intent

after your crack about my appearance? Whatever the hell that was supposed to mean.

[Captain Hilts]

40. People criticize Hil for being "ambitious" but not McCain, Frist...etc. nt

[havocmom]

46. uh, plenty here AND among GOP are critical of McCain's ambition

that makes him kat-ow to bushco and The Corporate Rulers, sell out his own principles and forget the attacks on his own family :eyes:

As for Frist.... nobody critical of his ambition and the choices HE makes to feed it? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[pnwmom]

61. How often do you see DU'ers attack Feingold for ambition?

You don't, because it's a special insult reserved for uppity people.

[havocmom]

72. MAYBE more just plain agree with his positions?

So is that some sort of ????ism? I forget how many new isms we have added to the debate :rofl: Or is it actually OK for us to like some people and not others in matters of style, content and who they get into political bed with?

And I don't support Feingold for pres either, for previously stated reason: Senators don't fare well in that race.

[pnwmom]

84. He's no more liberal than either of the women, overall.

Though I do applaud him for his positions on Iraq.

[Warren Stupidity]

49. Actually I have the identical opinion of McCain.

He has demonstrated that he has absolutely no moral principles that he will not violate in his quest for power. He is another empty shell of political ambition. But you are correct, I keep this hidden, as I keep my loathing for Lieberman hidden, as they are both men.

[Totally Committed]

59. Ditto.

Absolutely ditto!

TC

[havocmom]

77. Yep. He is a sell out to the ninth power

Can't help but wonder if that Keating Five deal wasn't worse than advertised. Somebody owns his soul and he seems willing to sell out ANY principle of late. He makes me profoundly sad.

[EarthNeedsHope]

45. Maybe we care so much about our country that

We realize that if ANYONE appeases Bush - Democrat or Republican - we are here to criticize THEM.

[havocmom]

48. Excellant point

Welcome to DU. Looking forward to reading more from you :hi:

[pnwmom]

62. I have no problem at all with Democrats criticizing Dem pols.

Just with mis-characterizing their records and unfairly calling them DINO's and "Repubs lite" when their actual voting records are more progressive than the average MALE democrat (who doesn't earn the labels) and far more progressive than any Republican.

[EarthNeedsHope]

95. I don't know what you call Hillary but WRONG

IMO.

[pnwmom]

99. Progressive Punch rates Hillary as the 10th most progressive

Senator in the Senate, with a score of 91% on progressive issues. Other rankings that evaluate her entire voting record put her at similar levels.

On the other side of the spectrum, the American Conservative Union rates her as 12% in conservative issues.

In short, she's no DINO and the people who say she is are misrepresenting her record.

[EarthNeedsHope]

105. Progressive Punch must be pretty regressive

nt

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Clinton's triangulating pandering to the right

is why I will not support her candidacy in the Democratic Party primaries. From gay marriage to flag burning to assault rifle bans to her stance on the Iraq War, she has demonstrated herself to be nothing more than a calculated political opportunist who will do or say anything she thinks will get her elected president. How that makes me sexist is an exercise in smear tactics that is beyond my comprehension. My position on this has nothing at all to do with her gender. I will of course support Clinton if she is our nominee. I just sincerely hope she does not make the cut.

[Totally Committed]

58. You are exactly right....

Triangulation and pandering to the Right AND the Corporations (many times, one and the same...) is why I cannot/will not support her. The DLC membership she proudly enjoys is just truly the kiss of death, and proof she cannot/should not be trusted, imo.

And, as someone who has longed for a female POTUS in her lifetime, I KNOW I'm not a sexist. If Hillary Clinton were not a woman, I wouldn't vote for her for those very same reasons. As I have said so many times... NEVER AGAIN.

TC

[pnwmom]

63. It appears that you're purposely missing the point.

Not liking Sen. Clinton doesn't make a person a sexist. And this isn't about YOU.

It is about people who call a woman who is the 10th most liberal person in the Senate a DINO or a "Republican-lite" -- even though they don't call men with weaker records by the same labels.

If the shoe fits, then wear it. But I'm not saying every person who opposes Clinton is a sexist. Just people who consistently misrepresent the records of female politicians in this way.

[havocmom]

74. When she rubber stamps bushco to the point that someone doesn't like it

they can call her a DINO. Who appointed the thought police around here? I was away for a few days and didn't get the memo that people weren't entitled to disagree anymore.

Somebody - forward the memo to me. Sure don't wanna be guilty of suggesting people can think for themselves without being attacked by others who don't know them nor have any actual proof of motives.

Assume... it's a dangerous business.

[pnwmom]

78. I'm not attacking other people for disagreeing with various positions.

I'm saying that people shouldn't misrepresent Sen. Cantwell and Sen. Clinton's records as being comparable to Republicans, when they are both at the liberal end of the Senate. Clinton has a score of 91% from Progressive Punch and Cantwell has an 88%. The majority of Republicans have scores below 15%!

And when you look at the pattern of who is called a DINO and who is not, it certainly appears that some "ism" or other is involved. Because it's not based purely on voting records.

[havocmom]

81. Have a great week

You probably need it.

We shall part with me agreeing people can agree to disagree and others do not get to define parameters/language/intent of people they know NOTHING about.

Be well, peace to you

[Roslyn]

64. Excellent post

but the Senators official website is http://www.cantwell.com/ I think the one you posted is going to be used as a smear site.

[pnwmom]

68. That's funny -- it links right up to her site. Did you try it?

Maybe she found out and took care of the problem.

That's something to watch for, though. Thanks!

[Roslyn]

73. That's weird

I tried it again and all it says is Maria Cantwell with a banner that says The Inside Story and stay tuned. The same thing happens if you put org instead of com I think it's definitely going to be a right-wing site.

[pnwmom]

76. But above the banner that says Inside Story

it says, in black letters, www.mariacantwell - etc. If you click on that, it goes to www.cantwell.com

Did you try that?

[Roslyn]

83. No, I didn't.

Thanks for correcting me and when deciding if I'm a complete dumbass please know that I only got three hours of sleep and that I usually have much more common sense.

[pnwmom]

85. ha, ha! But you still could be right.

That site, if it is owned by someone else, could be used for nefarious purposes. Hopefully Cantwell controls it now, though. There is a strange email address there, so I wonder about that.

[fuzzyball]

86. I love both Hillary and Maria since I love centrist democrat women

politicians. That's just me...I am not extreme on any issue
including abortion. For example abortion should be legal for
atleast first 3 to 4 months, and severely restricted after
the fetus is capable of surviving on it's own outside of the
womb.

[IndianaGreen]

93. That "democrat" shit always gives you away!

:eyes:

[fuzzyball]

103. Have you noticed I never respond to your posts?

The only people I make it a point to not respond or
dialog with are communists. And your avatar looks like
Karl Marx to me. Nothing personal against you. But I
have to draw a line somewhere.

If your avatar is not Karl Marx, please accept my sincere
apologies and you will be off my ignore list.

[Solon]

94. See, you illustrate EXACTLY what I hate about centrists...

You guys are completely clueless, and your position on abortion perfectly illustrates that. You try so HARD to be "in the center" you would probably avoid pesky little facts like the fact that ALL third trimester abortions are done ONLY for these 3 reasons:

Health of woman is in jeopardy.

Fetus is non-viable(disease, deformaties, etc.)

Life of woman is in jeopardy.

Less than 1% of ALL abortions done in this country actually ARE of this variety, by the way.

So you wish for legislation to pass that, as of now, only allows 3rd trimester abortions only when the 3rd condition is met, and some with NO conditions at all. In other words, women that have fetuses die in the womb, yet are not expelled, are just shit out of luck, huh? Cause those are the type of laws that Repukes and "Moderate" Dems pass ALL the fucking time.

Look, I'm a guy, so this doesn't even personally affect me, however, keep these damned laws off of the woman's body!

[fuzzyball]

102. I think a man was also involved in creating that "fetus" or was it

simply cloning? And I will never "hate" you regardless
of our differences in ideology. You are a fellow human being
and probably a fellow countryman and therefore I will always
have love in my heart.

[Solon]

104. Doesn't matter, the woman carries it for however long she WANTS...

to, she has the absolute RIGHT to do whatever she wants to that fetus up till birth, Fathers have NO responsibility till then anyways. Not legally.

[ComerPerro]

87. Thats a broad generalization, is an idiotic statement, and is complete BS

Case in point:

I don't support Hillary, I consider her to be Republican Lite. And on top of that, I assure you she is 100% unelectable.

And, to go a step further, I think her supporters are uncreative hacks, at best.



At no time did I ever say that Bush and Gore were the same, or anything remotely like that.

[pnwmom]

89. The "uncreative hacks" who elected her Senator of New York

will dispute your idea that she's 100% unelectable. And they won't thank you for calling them "uncreative hacks."

Why did you leap to the conclusion I was talking about the Presidential election? I brought up the fact that certain female SENATORS get attacked in a way that rarely happens to male Senators with comparable liberal credentials. One of the Senators I see this happen to is one of my own Senators, Maria Cantwell, who is currently running for re-election. And so is Hillary Clinton. They deserve not to have their records twisted by their primary and other opponents.

And we deserve, after these long years, to have a party with some subpoena power in Congress.

[wiley]

91. Great Post!

[IndianaGreen]

92. The test is the war and Bush's power grab. HIllary fails in all counts!

While our 2000 and 2004 Presidential nominees pass the test with flying colors and beaucoup kudos.

As to Maria Cantwell, she has no Presidential ambitions, and I rather trust the judgment of Washington State's DUers about her, and my brother's judgment (he lives in Tacoma).

[pnwmom]

100. Who says WA state DU'ers don't support Cantwell? I do, and I know lots

of others.

My post wasn't about Presidential politics. Both Cantwell and Clinton are up for reelection right now.

And it will be a disaster for Washington state if McGavick replaces Cantwell, besides helping to destroy our chances to taking the Senate.

[AlGore-08.com]

96. Sorry, your argument is based on a logical fallacy

Your argument is:

"There is a huge difference between Al Gore and George W. Bush;
Al Gore is a Democrat and George W. Bush is Republican;
Therefor, there is a huge difference between all Democrats and all Republicans".

Logically, it's no better than the position you're complaining about.

If we really want to discuss the relative merits (or lack of merits) of politicians, we have to abandon this extremely dangerous black/white thinking. Democrats are not interchangeable. They're not mass produced like kleenex. They're individual human beings, with different ideas, different strengths and different weaknesses. They also have different resumes -- some have real vision and the ability to turn their ideas into practical solutions and some wouldn't recognize an idea if it bit them on the backside or get "The 2006 Fluffy Kitten and Puppy Appreciation Act" passed. Some are moral leaders and some are total sleezebags who are embarrassments to the party.

And some of them would make poor Presidents.

[pnwmom]

98. You're wrong. I'm not making the general argument you think I'm making.

For one thing, I'm NOT talking about Presidents, or who would make a good one or a poor one. I'm talking about a couple SENATORS who are up for reelection to the Senate, and who both deserve our strong support.

And I'm NOT making a general statement about the differences between Republicans and Democrats.

I'm saying that the ACTUAL policy differences between Maria Cantwell, who is often branded a DINO on these pages, and her Republican opponent McGavick are just as stark as the differences between Al Gore and Bush -- not because one is a Democrat and the other is a Republican, but because of the actual positions each has taken.

Maria, like half the Dem. Senators, followed the leadership's position and unfortunately voted to authorize the Iraq war subject to a number of provisions that Bush subsequently ignored. I wish all the Dems voted to oppose it, but they didn't. (But why is it that Cantwell and Clinton seem to get so much more criticism than the men who also voted for it?) But last November, Cantwell voted for Levin Reed, which calls for redeploying troops out of Iraq beginning in 2006. It did not pass, because the Republicans voted in a block to oppose it. McGavick, her Republican opponent, says we should stay in Iraq "as long as it takes."

On other issues, the environment, energy, abortion rights, gay rights, the differences are stark. Cantwell is a strong supporter of the environment and made Ted Stevens of Alaska furious when she opposed drilling in the Wildlife Refuge. McGavick is taking money and support from Ted Stevens, and also from the mining industry. I could go on, but the point is this: I wasn't making the general argument you thought I was making. I was talking about the particular positions Cantwell and Clinton have taken, i.e., their actual voting records, and contrasting them to the positions of their opponents. Anyone who takes the time to do this will see that it's ridiculous to call either of them DINO's or "Republican lite." There is a huge difference, as I said, between their positions and those of their opponents.

[Hawkowl]

97. Pressure

The only reason Cantwell has these positions now is because of the INTENSE PRESSURE we have applied to her for being such a craven coward always voting in her corporatist, centrist fashion. Voting to end cloture and then voting against Alito, while crowing she is defending America by opposing conservative judge confirmations was INFURIATING. Does she think we are idiots?!?

So I will keep up the pressure and insist she do more to oppose fascism and show a spine before she gets my vote.

[pnwmom]

101. So you're content to let McGavick win, then?

I think many of us, if not idiots, are not very pragmatic. It didn't matter how she voted on Alito -- Bush had the votes he needed to push him through in the long run.

And if progressives don't vote for Cantwell and McGavick wins, we're all going to suffer for it. There's a huge difference between the two candidates.

[Marnieworld]

106. So when we hated Lieberman were we Anti-Semites?

Please! I disagreed with him and I don't know about Cantwell specifically but I have disagreed with many of Hillary's stances and tactics. Despite so many other greater issues she wasted time on flag-burning. She is working for "the middle" and seems transparent in her calculations. But my point is moot I guess? I must be a self-hating woman. I thought the goal is to just evaluate people as people. I hate that as soon as someone is disagreed with then it becomes about their race/gender/religion. Could it be that we just like other people more and wish she'd be like them. I like Feingold but he's jewish so I can't support him because I hate Lieberman so clearly I'm an anti-semite. It's so hard to keep up with. :eyes: :sarcasm: