Do we weigh in against Senators Hutchison and Dole because we're sexist or

[blm]

because we don't care for their policies and longtime protection and support of Bush and the global fascist agenda?

Do we weigh in against Andrea Mitchell, Candy Crowley, Judy Miller and Katie Couric because we're sexist or because we detest their spin against honest Democrats as they manage to find ways to support Bush policies and the global fascist agenda?


If we vote or protest against any of those women named, are we all JUST sexist Democrats or principled Democratic citizens working against the global fascist agenda those women have protected for years?

[Deep13]

1. If you single them out, then it is sexism.

First of all, your question assumes nonexistant facts.
Neither candidate supports fascism or Bush policies. And the only one running a real propaganda machine is your guy and you are part of it. HC's criticisms of BO so far have been valid.

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

2. That doesn't make any sense.

So if I say Ann Coulter sucks, I'm sexist because I singled her out?

[Beaverhausen]

10. If you call Coulter "Ann the Man" or a 'slut' or a 'whore", that is sexist

[DJ13]

3. Neither candidate supports fascism or Bush policies.

IWR was a Bush policy.

And Bill tried passing the Patriot Act 6 years before Bush got it passed.

[blm]

11. Bill DIDN'T deep-six outstanding BCCI matters? IranContra matters? CIA drugrunning matters?

Iraqgate matters?

Are you sure?

BCCI was the blueprint for the Global Fascist Agenda, fer chrissakes.

It didn't get deep-sixed on its own throughout the 90s.

[blogslut]

5. Single them out?

What does that even mean?

Women who support deplorable policies must be grouped in with the men in order for the criticism to be justifiable?

Seriously, what does "single out" mean to you?

[blm]

9. Neither Clinton supported Bush on Iraq war decisions from 2003 thru 2006? Are you sure?

The Clintons DIDN'T protect BushInc throughout the 90s by deep-sixing all those matters that should have put him in jail along with Clinton benefactor Jackson Stephens?


http://consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html



The Clintons DIDN'T protect Bushboy in 2004 by undermining and sabotaging the Dem nominee?

Historian Douglas Brinkley saw it differently from you in April2004:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=13354

Bill used his book tour to protect and defend Bush in summer2004:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/19/clinton.iraq/

Carville sabotaged Ohio Dem voters to protect Bush on election night:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/oct/07/did_carville_tip_bush_off_to_kerry_strategy_woodward


Hillary would find a camera to join Bush's smear of a Dem but never found one to defend a Dem under attack, did she?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg


I think you don't KNOW the Clintons.

Obama has only just come into the public scene. Many an honest Dem has been undermined and sabotaged by the Clintons and their protection of BushInc. Obama has only become the last vehicle the rest of the principled Dems can use at this point to break the grip of the Bushprotecting Clinton-Lieberman wing of the party.

[Beaverhausen]

4. Plenty of criticism directed at those women is sexist in tone

[McCamy Taylor]

6. Lumping these people together is sexist.

[ProSense]

7. Why? n/t

[blm]

8. Of course, it is. Lumping Bush, Bill Clinton, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals is sexist,

too, by that standard.