Hillary needs to very vocally oppose this, and fast, if she has any desire to remain a part of the Democratic party.

i think hillary is an agent of alien overlords and dividing the democratic party was her plan all along so McCain can win the presidency and lead US into nuclear jihad against Iran and eventualy the world. but that's just my opinion...

I'm tempted to say good riddance.

Whoa. Holy crap. I never thought O'Reilly would seem even a little sane, but these two women make him look positively healthy.

man you can't make some people happy

Seriously, dumb feminists ruin the world. Having a dick does not make Obama a bad choice. He obviously represents a great hope for change to people, and the fact that you would try to derail that when McCain is the only one who could benefit?

Go home and make me a damn sandwhich! More seriously, go home and stop being a vengeful whore.

Wow, Bill found two people dumb enough to make him look erudite.

What are these supposed examples of sexism? And which of them are actually coming from Obama and his campaign?

Will they really vote for McCain? It looks like he'll support a party platform which doesn't allow abortion even in cases where it's necessary to save the life of the mother, despite of his own past statements about how repugnant that policy is.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4824779

"Seriously, dumb feminists ruin the world...Go home and make me a damn sandwhich! More seriously, go home and stop being a vengeful whore."

They're almost as bad as dumb sexists. Go home and learn to spell "sandwich."

The one on the left looks like she's reading off a script. They're both DINOs and idiots, regardless of gender. Please point out how the Obama campaign has been "incredibly sexist" and how anyone is stealing the nomination from Hillary? PUH-LEEZE. This is just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Just because 2 idiots go on TV saying they're going to do something does not mean any significant number of voters will follow along. As long as they're not brain dead sheep, that is.

It should come as no surprise that some women would react this way. They were probably extremely excited about the possibility of having a woman in the white house. Having to face the reality that it may not occur is a tough pill to swallow. And many older women have lived a life full of struggles and in doing so, some have grown defensive and, amg the evil word, bitter. So of course, a certain group of Clinton supporters will refuse to support Obama - they had their hearts set on a woman. Perhaps any woman... Because really, they had their hearts set on a dream come true. In that light, I can kind of understand where they are coming from. I can have some sympathy even.

But that doesn't mean it's rational.

good gravy look at o'reilly talking down to them. It's like he's speaking to a child or something. And theres the spin Bill puts on them. He puts words in their mouths, talks trash about his competition (abc) and says support for Barack is about money! I guess the bullshit never ends w/ O'reilly.

This is nothing but typical Fox News garbage. "If you're not with us, you're with them and look how crazy they are." Just because people are on TV doesn't mean their opinion matters or should be taken seriously in anyway.

I've go no love for Hillary, but she doesn't have to answer to this kind of swine.

Its a shame that these women were apparently rooting for Hillary primarily because she was a woman.

... talk about sexist.

Oh, now we're buying into idiot-guests this asshole drums up???!! Shit, I thought the people here were smarter than that. Anybody who wants, or likes, to believe that these two chowder-heads speak for feminists, are bigger idiots than these two. Fucking reactionary commenters with mother problems, wake up.

Some of the comments in this thread are what I would expect, and some are really refreshingly entertaining. We even get to see crittter mad, which makes me visualize that little dog in her avatar all bristly and running off an even bigger dog. (that wasn't criticism, her comment is what made me want to joyfully post)

Thanks, fellow sifters, for some thoughtful comments.

Fox at its best (worst)! Neo-Cons are showing that they will do whatever it takes to make sure Obama will not be elected. Fox has been the number one contributor to the major smear campaign. "Obama is an Elitist", "Hamas endorses Obama",... Hmmm, now let's go find two feminist (oh and make sure one of them is black) that can act as bobble heads while Bill feeds lies to the viewers in the form of seemingly 'fair and balanced' questions.

Let's just be realists and admit; more votes will be cast in this election solely because of gender and race than ever before, both to the benefit and detriment of all candidates currently in the hunt. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Diversity is progress that comes with its own baggage. In a perfect world every citizen would know the specifics of each candidate's platform, compare them to their own values and beliefs and then go cast a vote solely based on that. It ain't a perfect world. These ladies aren't anomalies, unfortunately.

^ No, Snoozedoctor, I don't need to admit that. I proudly consider myself a hardcore feminist, and I was always planning on voting for Obama based on character and issues. And who are you to say for whom these ladies speak? Looks to me like they speak for Bill O'Reilly. But then, I can only speak for myself.

Saying that if Hillary had never met Bill Clinton she likely wouldn't be where she is now isn't sexist, it's obvious. Having a democratic ex-president endorse you is worth a huge boost in both the 2000 democratic senate primary in New York and the current presidential primary. It's like saying George W Bush never would have been president if his father hadn't been president (duh).

They couldn't even come up with ONE example of sexism coming from the democratic party or the Obama campaign. They just went with one thing that one independent commentator said that wasn't even sexist. Florida and Michigan were stripped of their representation at the democratic convention because they (against the rules) decided to have their primaries before super tuesday to inflate their own influence. Now I think it's a silly double standard to let Iowa and New Hampshire do it without letting other states do it, but that argument has NOTHING to do with sexism. And even if Florida and Michigan counted, Hillary would still have fewer delegates than Obama.

^ It looked to me like the African American lady had a gun pointed at her.

I think if the camera zoomed out a bit, we'd see Hillary with a bandana tied around her head, holding an M16 in her right hand, and a prepared statement in her left.

^jwray, are you always so gullible?
(edit) I owe you an explanation on this comment - I thought you were actually taking these two even slightly seriously. On second read I see that you weren't actually validating them by considering their extremely misguided opinions. Apologies.

The fact that a female and an African American are, for the first time in history, really in the race for president, makes it necessarily so. If 2% of the population makes a determination based on one of those factors (and I do believe that to be conservative), it's more than any presidential election in history, by default. It's never even been an option before.
>> ^critttter:
^ No, Snoozedoctor, I don't need to admit that. I proudly consider myself a hardcore feminist, and I am voting for Obama based on character and issues. And who are you to say for whom these ladies speak? Looks to me like they speak for Bill O'Reilly. But then, I can only speak for myself.

>> ^critttter:
^jwray, are you always so gullible?


I didn't comment on their motivations or whom they represent. What are you talking about? I'm not buying in to the notion that these two guests represent anybody but themselves. There is no such thing as a statement too stupid to deserve rebutting, even if it comes from O'Reilly. What was wrong with what I said?

>> ^uhohzombies:
The one on the left looks like she's reading off a script. They're both traitors and idiots, regardless of gender. Please point out how the Obama campaign has been "incredibly sexist" and how anyone is stealing the nomination from Hillary? PUH-LEEZE. This is just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Just because 2 idiots go on TV saying they're going to do something does not mean any significant number of voters will follow along. As long as they're not brain dead sheep, that is.


Regardless of how you feel about these women, PLEASE don't refer to them as "traitors". I think their reasons are asinine, but the term "traitor" has been so abused over the past 6 years that it hurts my ears to hear it unless we're talking about Benedict Arnold. I like you, Mr. Zombies; you know that. I respect your political opinions more than most, but the term "traitor" should surely be reserved only for those guilty of high treason. If I were a Louisiana Republican I would hate to have been called a "traitor" because I refused to vote for David Duke in the '90s. You catch my drift.

Now I know there is a WORLD of difference between endorsing Obama and voting against David Duke. Still, I prefer the label of "traitor" be left at the door before you walk into our house at least, if no one else's.

The official crime of high treason needn't exist because all punishmentworthy instances of it consist of other crimes (murder, espionage, etc). Disloyalty itself shouldn't be considered a crime. Enforcing loyalty on pain of death equals slavery. Slavery to the collective state is still slavery. Anyone in a country has the right to leave that country and find a home elsewhere beyond its legal influence (if we are to maintain any pretense that the assent of the governed in the social contract is not obtained through duress). Benedict Arnold's crime was trying to surrender West Point to the British, not quitting the military and fleeing to England.

In addition to everything Kronosposeidon said, the notion that anything about how one chooses to vote could be considered treason is an anti-democratic meme that has been overplayed in all the pseudodemocratic dictatorships of the world. In Iraq under Saddam, or Russia under Putin, the secret police might have come after you if you campaigned for the "wrong" candidate.

>> ^snoozedoctor:
Let's just be realists and admit; more votes will be cast in this election solely because of gender and race than ever before, both to the benefit and detriment of all candidates currently in the hunt. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Diversity is progress that comes with its own baggage. In a perfect world every citizen would know the specifics of each candidate's platform, compare them to their own values and beliefs and then go cast a vote solely based on that. It ain't a perfect world. These ladies aren't anomalies, unfortunately.


No more so then when in the 2000 when it was people casting votes for Religious reasons. Or because one candidate looks like you can have a beer with them over the other. Or because one candidate is more MILITARY CRAZED over the other.

These women are Hillary foot soldiers. Guilt trip other women into voting for Hillary.

Fair enough, and edited, out of respect for my pal Kronos. I will refer to them instead as DINOs Because that's what you are if you claim to be a Democrat, but then have a hissy fit when your pet candidate loses and vote for the person who holds diametrically opposite positions to those you supposedly still support. Because, face it, Obama and Clinton have near identical policy viewpoints.

Yeah, something that's pretty obvious, which drew some gasps when I said it at the Nebraska caucus, was that the policy differences between Obama and Clinton are small compared to the policy differences between either and McCain. Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain instead of Obama are probably just ignorant.

^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??

The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

"Anyone in a country has the right to leave that country and find a home elsewhere beyond its legal influence (if we are to maintain any pretense that the assent of the governed in the social contract is not obtained through duress)."

see even the left of the left use the ol', "If you don't like it here, move to (insert model country here)-

^I hate that mentality. It is possible to love your country and not like where it's headed. Just like you can love your children despite them pissing you off and getting into trouble. The fact of the matter is you should stand up for what you believe and make your voice heard. Sometimes those voices come from mentally challenged folks that are willing to sabotage the democrats' chances just because they're sore losers. But hey, we don't encourage high intelligence from our presidents so why should we expect it from ourselves.

It's like watching dumb & dumber interviewed by dumbest.

http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1003

I don't disagree with you. It's not the basic premise. It's the undercurrent. I'm not trying to say that a majority of women will vote for Hillary because of her gender. I'm saying some will. How many? I don't know. But, you can't tell me there aren't women out there who think it's past time for a female president, and more power to them. The guys have really been making a mess of it lately.



>> ^critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??
The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.

I was talking about race and gender. I think you're talking about different platforms and different personalities. The final candidates in 2000 were of the same race and gender, therefore they couldn't be distinguished on those characteristics alone. I could care less what motivates the two ladies in the video. I'm talking about the bigger picture.

>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^snoozedoctor:
Let's just be realists and admit; more votes will be cast in this election solely because of gender and race than ever before, both to the benefit and detriment of all candidates currently in the hunt. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Diversity is progress that comes with its own baggage. In a perfect world every citizen would know the specifics of each candidate's platform, compare them to their own values and beliefs and then go cast a vote solely based on that. It ain't a perfect world. These ladies aren't anomalies, unfortunately.

No more so then when in the 2000 when it was people casting votes for Religious reasons. Or because one candidate looks like you can have a beer with them over the other. Or because one candidate is more MILITARY CRAZED over the other.
These women are Hillary foot soldiers. Guilt trip other women into voting for Hillary.

I think this might be the first election in my lifetime where people actually pay attention to the issues.

There's a war going on that most people think is a mistake, and want us to end.

There's an economic crisis, with home foreclosures, $4/gal gas, and rising food prices, all made worse by 6+ years of stagnant wage growth.

There's a healthcare crisis -- we pay far and away more for healthcare per capita than any other country, yet our fundamental health statistics put us near the bottom of all industrialized nations (27th-29th overall).

There's an environmental crisis that fewer and fewer people can ignore.

There's an all out frustration with a government that tries to adjust facts to fit the policy, rather than the policy to fit the facts.

More than 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, the highest percentage in the history of the poll.

Bottom line, people are mad as hell, and they're not gonna take it anymore.

^
Tell 'em NetRunner. I don't want to get started on the health-care part, cause I might not stop. 17% of GDP. Ridiculous. You left tort reform off the list. Got to have tort reform.

*dead

This published video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by jonny.

Awarding EDD with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.

*dead

This video has been declared non-functional; embed code must be fixed within 2 days or it will be sent to the dead pool - declared dead by eric3579.