Politico: Dems must woo white men to win

I am inclined to think it isn't just white men but men in general that need to be wooed, though I think that for the Dems that is a lost cause-- not because the GOP is so much better but because it's a lesser of evils. It is true to say if men of all ethnicities would just GO VOTE, we could stop the Hildebeast easily. She is counting on our apathy and the girl-power of her female fan-base to take her all the way. And she just might do it, too, so get cracking, guys!

(From the article) -- "As portrayed by the new breed of liberalism, the white man held all the cards, and everyone else’s bad deal was his fault. The problem was that the bulk of white men did not feel like dealers or players. They felt like pieces on someone else’s table, and their livelihood, their family’s very stability, was in richer men’s hands, as well."

This is an important analysis, because it refers directly to the genius rhetorical trick of feminism -- to equate gender with class: i.e. -- since a few white men are powerful, then ALL white men have that power, and power is based in gender.

This is the primary fallacy of feminism and one that has yet to be successfully debunked. (IMBRA will pass this week, just like VAWA.)

My personal politics are so far left that I do not even show up on a graph of the American voters' spectrum of opinion.

Mostly because I have felt for decades that U.S. foreign and economic policies are destroying the American middle class and the average father/husband's access to self-sufficiency for his family.

But in 2008 I may have to vote for whatever corporatist G.O.P. shill runs against Hitllary.

It's not even a choice between the lesser of two evils... merely a surrender to Evil.

I'm thinking seriously about not voting at all --- perhaps the only ethical choice.

See, Hillary? You do need men for something, other than just your entire career.

That's why communism failed in Russia. The dictatorship of the proletariat was run by men!

Look at this:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/43362

'In "For Love of Politics," Sally Bedell Smith's new book on Bill and Hillary Clinton's marriage during their White House years, the First Lady is a woman determined not to surrender to emotion, even when her husband and the nation have. While President Clinton idles away an hour hugging his way through a rope line at a Democratic Leadership Council fund-raiser, his wife, backstage, waits patiently to depart. As the president admits on TV to an affair with Monica Lewinsky, the First Lady waits in the White House solarium and greets staffers with a smile. Chelsea, the dutiful daughter, tries hard to mimic mom: "Emotions aren't rational," she tells friends.'

I once watched an interview of Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf. He said he wouldn't want to follow an officer who didn't cry at the death(s) of his men. As much as Bill Clinton was too sentimental, being not sentimental at all is positively dangerous. And hasn't the biggest argument in favor of a woman president been that she will bring "feminine values" to the job? Any way you look at it, egad, The Hildebeast is less and less appealing every day, and I didn't think I could dislike her more.

She couldn't possibly have been where she's at now without her husband. Who would want such an undignified, masochistic phony as President?

I predict that Hillary will win the Demo nomination and then will be destroyed in the national election.

Why?

Because WOMEN do not like her.

Clearly most men do not trust her.

But the MSM cannot actually expose this secret national paranoia. (Hillary is in fact uniting women and men in a way she never anticipated.... both genders hate her.)

Who would want a menopausal hormone roller-coaster ride with a grudge against her husband and all men as Commandress-in-Chief?

Chavez, even the likely-already-dead Fidel, look rational by comparison.

If the next Prez is Rudy, I guess we'll have to put up with cell phone calls from wifey No. 4 every time he has a press conference. (It might be No. 5 by 2008.)

This board is noticeably lacking in Ron Paul advocates.

Odd.

This board is noticeably lacking in Ron Paul advocates.

I've admired Ron Paul for at least 10-15 years. You can take or leave his specific views but he is one of the few individuals in congress who is not a politician. He stands behind a set of principles and does not waver in an effort to appease any particular group, especially politically correct groups. He is honest. He says what he believes, not what he thinks people want to hear.

Rudy is talented, but he's stuck in New York. Over and over again throughout the debates he refers to his experience as a mayor which has nothing to do with what he's running for. And when's the last time a mayor got elected President? Voters prefer to elect a governor, general, or vice president.

Hitlery is running against white men, as a class.
I've pretty well made my mind up to vote Republican this time.
Both sides of congress are Dem, so it's not like we will have Bush's regime all over again.
-ax

I guess delivering 2,000 babies as a doctor gives you an appreciation for what actual "work" might mean.

Ron Paul looks awkward on tee-vee.

All the others, GOPS and DEMS are posing.

The posers always win in a democracy.

America needs a second revolution.

It is possible to un-elect incumbents.

Difficult, but possible.

Simply vote against the incumbent.

Throw the bastards OUT!

At the very least, it would be amusing.

Even if that happened, it would not be actual democracy.

Back in the mid 1950's a car was made by Ford called the Edsel. This was touted as the greatest damned car ever produced. It was predicted that everyone would simply fall head over heels in love with this car and everyone would have to have an Edsel. When it did get on the market everyone was severely disappointed that the Edsel was just another car. It had been over sold and consequently it flopped. And recently Katie Couric was touted as the greatest and freshest thing to hit the news media in the entire history of broadcasting. Her first news cast got record ratings. Then it was steadily downhill after that. She flopped. However, the brass at CBS are in denial about it and that is why she is still on the air. Hitlery Clinton, like the Edsel and Couric has also been oversold and I predict (hopefully) she will flop too.

The only chance for true democracy in this country is instant run-off voting. Institute that and voters will have real choices; for now, the two-headed hydra rules.

Somewhere I read that Ford Co. reacted to the negative image and disappointing sales of the Edsel by rebranding virtually the same auto as the Falcon or Galaxy. (Anybody know the true deal?)

Unless Edwards wins Iowa, and can get some Big Mo' going forward into the super-primaries cluster, it is inevitable that Hillary will be the Dem nominee.

I'm counting on her high negatives with non-feminist women to cost her the election.

It is funny that neither Obama or Edwards have gone aggressively negative on her baggage, history, character, voting record, etc.

Is it Chivalry, after all, that will win her the election?

His experience as a prosecutor is a compelling reason to not vote for him, in my opinion.

My mom had a Falcon when I was a kid, and that fucker would NEVER start! Then for the next car, she got a Rambler wagon...

-ax