iron this

[plethora__]

When I last posted on the election, I had been Whoabamaed.

His post-Iowa speech stirred me, and so, I finally decided to place one, tentative limb onto the Obama Bandwagon O' Hope.

And that's when the sexist floodgates opened. In part because Hillary's own floodgates opened, or so trumpeted the truly suffocating headlines-- "HILLARY GETS

Comments

[calebjduck]

By all means defend her against unfair criticism. Fight the good fight for equality. But doing so doesn't mean you have to vote for her. I find myself, more often than I'd like to, defending candidates I don't like (eg., Romney, Clinton, Huckabee) from unfair attacks. As much as I may be tempted to allow such silliness to take place (unless it's against my candidates, of course), I'm obligated to defend them in order to defend democracy. I defend them to defend critical thinking, and to do what I can to stamp out ignorance and partisan hackery in my community. But in defending them against ignorant and unfair attacks, I certainly don't feel any obligation to support them. I still want to see them left in the dust on Super Tuesday.

[yeah81]

You should come to my news group Thursday night at 9 (Prentice lounge).

[synchrohobbit]

This is why I am not voting democrat. They're all fuckin moderates anyway.

[neonbibles]

so you don't think hilary's tears were a ploy to put her womanhood in the spotlight?
there are too many cards to keep track of, but i still don't see why anybody would vote for a candidate out of indignation.