Clinton Team Turns Iowa Focus to Women

You only missed a few apostrophes, that's all. There's many worse grammatico-spelling offenders out there in the world.

(See, I do it, too; 'grammatico' isn't even a word!)

But with the practice of verbing becoming typical behavior, the weirding of language seems all but inevitable. :)

... she'll set up a special phone bank for whites, too.

Does anyone else think that if she felt she had to appeal to black voters or Hispanics or people of Lithuanian descent or whatever, there would be a lot of eyebrows raised at the ethno-specificity of the effort? So why is it OK for her to say "OK, women are my target!!" and then call on them to "reach out"?

Let's see anyone try to set up a "special phone bank targeting" virtually any other category of person and watch the reaction. But Hildebeast going after the female vote in particular (as if that was all that mattered, too)? Nope, not a peep. Except maybe here on MANN. :)

...that say "America - Men Need Not Apply" or "Men Aren't Welcome In My America" or "Looking Out For Women, and Women Only"?

Could any other candidate who promised to neglect the interests and needs of 49% of the population (who pay 70% of the taxes and do 99% of the dying in the military) ever stand the slimmest chances of getting elected?

The fact that this misandrist does stand a chance says everything I'll ever need or want to hear about American women. American women's selfishness has reached yet another new height, but this time it's visible, largely thanks to Clinton.

Not even Oprah supports her. Bye bye, cuckold.

But, from what I can see, Obama seems quite obliged to appeal to the female voters, while Hillary barely gives blacks the gum she scrapes off the bottom of her shoe. Either way, Hillary is calling the shots regardless of which of the two leads the polls.

It will be interesting to observe how the Hildebeast's campaign turns out in the end.
A campaign strategy that simply ignores 49% of the electorate (men's vote) has never to my knowledge been successful.

And that's her problem. She has no cross-over appeal whatsoever. She's up there because she has 100% name recognition, due to her husband who was fortunate enough to preside over a boom-era economy. But there won't be any Ron Paul level enthusiasm for her from any corner. Even the feminists don't trust her.

I worry about Barack Obama being perceived as Oprah's cabana boy....

Because his wife is way hotter than Oprah.

But not nearly as rich....

...is that a man like me wouldn't have any problem whatsoever voting for a female politician, even at the executive/head of state level, if that woman demonstrated that she had the ability to do the job, and that she would not spend all her time playing gender politics, which is all Clinton has done so far. I wouldn't vote for a white politician (or a black one, or an Asian one) who made it crystal-clear that he/she was only interested in his/her identity group's politics, so why would I vote for a woman (or a man) doing the same? Isn't the job of a leader in a republic to represent ALL of the citizens, not just those in their "identity" group? The frontman fallacy assures us that white males only look out for white males, but history clearly demonstrates that this is NOT the case. So why would I support someone doing what they falsely accuse us of doing?

Is there anything feminists, racists and other bigots don't make false accusations over?

The irony is that by playing gender politics as her trump card, Clinton has done more to set back the possibility of a female head of state in the US than any other person alive.

No, there isn't. The first and last instinct of those people is to lie.

The woman vote definitely isn't all that matters, however that's the only vote she can get. Most politically-educated people will NOT vote for someone that is just more of the same. The only way Hillary can lock in the primaries is to convince a large segment of the democrat base to not peek into her record but to vote for the vagina.