> It's symptomatic of a broader contempt for women,
> especially working-class women, which he's shown
> in his refusal to reach out to Clinton's
> supporters,

Contempt for woman?  Wow! I think you are way off here Judy.  But that
is the great thing about political discussions, we all have our POV.

I would buy the fact that he doesn't like Hillary and vise versa, and
I'm sure they both have pretty good reasons for feeling that way.

Personally I think this kind of extreme criticism is as distracting to
examining his true faults as all the sexist discussion about Palin.


--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" 
> <curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> >
> > > Again, I strongly suspect Obama knew exactly what
> > > he was saying.
> > 
> > The metaphor he used has an obvious meaning.  To try to
> > connect this with a disgusting slur on women is such a
> > stretch that I am amazed you could believe it.  I can
> > understand the right wing using it as a cynical tactic,
> > but you surprise me here.  As I said in my other post,
> > there are plenty of things to go after Obama for.  But
> > this kind of connection seems completely crazy to me.
> 
> I'm not as sure about the fish reference as I am
> about the lipstick one, but I really wouldn't put
> it past him.
> 
> Both metaphors have "an obvious meaning." That isn't
> the issue. The issue is whether he picked metaphors
> with obvious meanings to disguise less-obvious nasty
> swipes at Palin in order to give himself plausible
> deniability. And as I said, these are far from the
> only two instances from him of this sort of thing; it
> appears to be a habit.
> 
> It's symptomatic of a broader contempt for women,
> especially working-class women, which he's shown
> in his refusal to reach out to Clinton's
> supporters, dismissing them by saying they'll get
> over it and vote for him because there's nowhere
> else for them to go. And if they don't, that's OK
> because he doesn't need their votes.
>


Reply via email to