dagblog - Comments for "The problem with Hillary Clinton's anecdotes"

Re-reading this, it's like

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 14:23:09 +0000

In reply to I didn't even catch that, but

Re-reading this, it's like "if you persistent talking about the glass ceiling, even though you're driving away a lot of core (male) Democrats, make sure you realize how we gave you equal rights during the Civil Rights era (really? I thought that got postponed) and you MUST loudly check every group like unions etc that I decree essential to a politically correct statement, because Hillary's only speaking to rich gals while I'm protecting the underclass(men)". Real progressive guy, this Hal - women can have their rights as long as they make sure every other liberal interest group gets its rights at the same time (or first). I guess fixing us a sandwich while you're at it wouldn't hurt.

LOL,

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 13:45:05 +0000

In reply to Ramena, T-mac, I've rewatched

LOL,

I think Barefooted is right,

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 13:44:16 +0000

In reply to You're so right, Teri. I

I think Barefooted is right, Hal seems to be saying that blue collar men don't want to hear this. I just don't think most of those men are quite as shallow as Hal is intimating.

I didn't even catch that, but

tmccarthy0 — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 13:40:24 +0000

In reply to It's worse than that. In

I didn't even catch that, but you are right barefooted.

Ramena, T-mac, I've rewatched

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 07:06:18 +0000

In reply to You're so right, Teri. I

Ramona, T-mac, I've rewatched every Leave it to Beaver and Dobey Gillis re-run, and I haven't seen NASA mentioned anywhere, so I think Hillary's making it up. And in Gidget, Sally Fields was in such a good mood, it must have been a great time for women. Think of all those bridge clubs and Tupperware parties - men weren't allowed to do that.

You're so right, Teri. I

Ramona — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 01:25:04 +0000

In reply to As noted above, this

You're so right, Teri. I remember it all with way too much clarity. But I'm still trying to figure out which one of Hillary's "dusty recollections" is going to turn off the voters. And why.

It's worse than that. In

barefooted — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 01:24:44 +0000

In reply to As noted above, this

It's worse than that. In context, he clearly isn't referring to women - it was the "golden age" for white working class men. Apparently when Clinton mentions how women have always had, and still have, to fight for our rights it turns a key demographic away from Democrats; reminding them that their lot was so much better when "girls and women knew their place".

Ahem.

Michael Maiello — Sun, 06 Dec 2015 00:08:30 +0000

In reply to No wrestling fans here?

Ahem.

Love her. Though I tend to prefer a bit more power.

As noted above, this

tmccarthy0 — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 23:48:11 +0000

In reply to The problem with Hillary Clinton's anecdotes

As noted above, this demographic has suffered psychically worse than any other over the past thirty years. For them, the early 60s - when NASA rejected young Hillary Rodham - was a golden era.

For women? Seriously? Wow! That's news to every woman I know.

The 1960's certainly brought changes for women, but it is not considered a golden era at all. There were many things women were barred from in the 1960's. Women in the 1960's could not:

1. Get Credit,

2. Serve on a jury

3. Obtain an Ivy League education

4. Get equal pay for equal work

6. Keep their jobs when they got pregnant

7. Report cases of sexual harassment

8. Run in the Boston Marathon

9. refuse to have sex with her husband

10. get a divorce

11. Have a legal abortion

12.Legally use contraceptives

13. Practice Law, Until 1971, women could be denied women the right to practice law, even if they had qualified as lawyers, purely because they were women. Barring women from practicing law was only prohibited in the US in 1971.

14. Live with their boyfriend.

It wasn't a golden era for us, and some of those things above we are still fighting for Hal. I don't know, you have some weird thing about women identifying with Hillary Clinton.

A note to you personally Hal, Hilary Clinton's NASA anecdote reminds me of the time I took my first physics class in engineering school, ugh, I've told this story so many times... Anyhow, it was August of 1981, and I arrived in my freshman physics class, Physics 104 with Prof. Lowery. His very first announcement was, if you are a woman in my class you will not pass. He was not fired for this, the four women in the class were offered a spot in Prof. Western's class. Every single woman I know has a different but similar story.

You cannot Atwater her Hal, it simply isn't going to work.

Hal,

Wattree — Sat, 05 Dec 2015 19:39:10 +0000

In reply to The problem with Hillary Clinton's anecdotes

Hal,

This is a great, well-written, and balanced article - at least, from my point of view. I trust neither Bill, nor Hillary. I think they're closet fiscal conservative corporatists, and much more interested in their own interests than they are the interest of the American people. Hillary doesn't even know how to PRETEND to be less than remote from the American people. Everything she does seems to be calculated for effect. I don't like people like that, either personally, or as politicians. Nevertheless, if she wins the Democratic nomination, I'll hold my nose and support her, because I don't subscribe to the Ralph Nader/Cornel West philosophy of being so frustrated with the Bogey Man that I leave the backdoor open for the Devil. But even if Hillary wins, I'd consider it Republican lite. I'd love to see a Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren ticket. I think it would be unbeatable. Bill and Hillary Clinton are yesterday's news. They can't even trust each other, so why should we?