Sexism is not acceptable?
BWAHAHAHAHAHA, that is rich!
Of course it's acceptable, don't be ridiculous.
It sells beer, it sells liquor, it sells music, it sells magazines.
And we're supposed to worry about one photo on the internet, when there are millions of porn sites out there depicting worse sexism than you can ever conceive.
Give me a fucking break.
Oh please, now we're comparing drunk driving to this picture?
Drunk driving for one, is illegal, mostly because innocent people get injured or killed because of it.
Groping a cardboard cut out is not illegal and as I said on the other thread, if it had been a picture of Britney Spears or Paris Hilton, we would not be having this conversation.
The only reason some people are up in arms about it is because they want any excuse to bash the president elect or his staff.
Yes, he was, though Montana's state senate meets about 100 days out of the year, if I remember correctly.
So you would rather have another experienced politician to replace Hillary? Who else is up for consideration, does anyone know?
I'm open for suggestions, I just don't think that Caroline Kennedy should be dismissed simply because she lacks legislative experience.
A TV pundit who sucks up to Republicans and is a blatant sexist and avowed hate-everything-Clinton as a Dem senator in Pa? Honest to god, as much as I have a love/hate relationship with Specter, I'd vote for him over Matthews in a heartbeat.
I heard he's actually doing this to make himself more appealing to NBC, since he is in contract negotiations right now.
I don't think it's a horrible pick by any stretch of the imagination, according to the Wiki bio Bob posted above, she is a lawyer, has experience working in both DC and NY, she certainly has the liberal creds, and might make a great senator.
We've put less experienced people in Senate seats (John Tester, Jim Webb, etc), why not give her a chance if New Yorkers support it?
And if the cardboard had depicted Britney Spears instead of Hillary we wouldn't be having this conversation.
I've been fighting sexism all my working life, there are things worth getting outraged about and things which are not. The media's sexism against Hillary was a problem during the primaries, some speechwriter playing around with a cardboard cut out of Hillary is barely noteworthy.
There's a reason I don't read the WSJ anymore.
The diary above explains why. Because they're stupid.
First of all, who is enraged? Who is "the left wing" of the party?
They're scared, really scared that Obama is going to be an historic president and the Republicans as they are now are on the verge of extinction.
It was bullshit- the National Journal cherry picked 92 votes out of over 400 to get that most liberal senator label. They also did the same thing to Kerry in 2004:
A Republican National Committee ad released Oct. 16 claims that Kerry is "the most liberal man in the Senate." It's true that vote rankings by the politically neutral magazine The National Journal rated Kerry "most liberal" in 2003 and in three earlier years during his first Senate term: 1986, 1988, and 1990. But over his entire career the Journal ranks Kerry the 11th most liberal Senator. And by other rankings he's only a bit left of his party's center.
You know, there's certainly a difference between being outraged (whether justified or not is not up to me), and then calling something like playing with a piece of cardboard "morally heinous".
Which is it, ksn? Do you think this man's actions were "morally heinous"?
Can someone else explain how a photo becomes "hate speech"?
I always assumed that one has to speak to infer "speech".
And really, playing with a cardboard cut out is "morally heinous"?
Nancy, you're becoming a caricature of yourself with these ridiculous diaries.