geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, of course, they went after Congressman Weiner, after all--he treats women with contempt! Just look at the denunciation:

The head of the Brooklyn/Queens chapter of the National Organization for Women said she could separate Weiner's sexcapades from the liberal track record that earned the group's support.

"I wasn't happy to discover that my congressman is a 14-year-old boy," said Julie Kirshner, president of the NOW chapter.

"But he happens to be one of the best politicians out there, so we're in a bad position. We're trying to give him the benefit of the doubt."

Doug Muzzio, a Baruch College public affairs professor, said women's groups can stand by Weiner because he's championed their causes - but he can't count on the votes of many individual women.

Richard suggests Hillary Clinton was pursued by the MSM in the same way.

Bad example!!!. The local chapter head of NOW and some college professor aren't MSN. Have you seen the Daily News on Weiner? Four inch headlines (oh, did I just type that???) They are having a field day. We all are!! The combination of his name, the prurient nature of what he did, the fact that he's a jerk personally, has just made him a target that is irresistible.

GMTom wrote:As stated before, I thought it was NOW who stated this stuff, it was three years ago and the actual source may have been wrong. I mentioned how these leftist groups all blend together in my head over time, that apparently is not acceptable ...oh well,
Here is one quote from the Washington Post (a very liberal paper) (Sally Quinn)
“When you have five children, one a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, I don’t see how you cannot make your family your first priority.”

Doctor Fate wrote:

GMTom wrote:As stated before, I thought it was NOW who stated this stuff, it was three years ago and the actual source may have been wrong. I mentioned how these leftist groups all blend together in my head over time, that apparently is not acceptable ...oh well,
Here is one quote from the Washington Post (a very liberal paper) (Sally Quinn)
“When you have five children, one a 4-month-old Down syndrome baby, I don’t see how you cannot make your family your first priority.”

Whether NOW officially attacked her, they never offered the slightest support. Why? Because, just like Dr. Quinn Journalism Woman, they disagree with her politically.

Feminists reject women who have traditional views, even if they don't take traditional roles. For them, it really is a matter of ideological purity.

The same thing with minorities. Conservative minorities become "race traitors" (house N*, whatever) for having the temerity to not be full-on liberals.

It's hypocrisy. And, it's not surprising that some liberals here (and "swing" voters) don't get it.

Interesting. I have this bridge here. It's not London Bridge, but a thing that goes over water just the same. If it's all the same in your mind, then I'm sure it's just what you need...

geojanes wrote:You all know that website is a fake news website, right? Or am I missing your the sarcasm?
"Proud publishers of fake news" kind of gives it away . . .

Archduke Russell John wrote:I have spent the last hour looking for another source with no luck on a specific member of NOW making that comment. However, there have been any number of people making that comment from all sides of the political spectrum.

Clinton endured volumes of insults from mainstream media commentators comparing her, for example, to a "she-goat."

One Fox News commentator whined that every time Clinton opened her mouth, all any man could think of was his wife telling him to take out the garbage. Talk show demon Rush Limbaugh made derogatory comments about Clinton, posing the question whether the nation wanted to watch her age in the White House

Female politicians have long struggled with a double standard: while being criticized or perceived as "soft" or "weak" if they come across as too traditionally feminine, they are also accused of being too "hard" or "strident" if they come off as assertive and powerful — traditionally masculine attributes. ...

Indeed, in Pelosi's first days as Speaker of the House, The Washington Post's Style section ran an article on Nov. 10 dissecting her choice of clothing for her swearing in ceremony, in which writer Robin Givhan used the word "chic" to describe her appearance and claimed that "an Armani suit, for a woman, is a tool for playing with the boys without pretending to be one." As Annette Fuentes responded in a Feb. 13 USA Today opinion piece, "I would wager that Pelosi is one woman who doesn't play around with anyone."

Nothing New for Hillary Clinton

Clinton is no stranger to this kind of treatment from the press. An opinion article in The Oklahoman referenced her "frequent wearing of dark pants suits to conceal her bottom-heavy figure." Political cartoonist Nick Anderson created an animated cartoon which ran on the Houston Chronicle website featuring a curvaceous Clinton being asked, in the words of a popular song, "What you gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside your trunk?" Without the accompanying drawing, one could have assumed that Anderson was referring personal baggage, but the cartoon made clear that he was also making a sly dig at her shape. When was the last time an opinion piece or cartoon commented on a male candidate's figure?

Adding insult to injury, The New York Times published a Maureen Dowd piece (titled "Mama Hugs Iowa") on Jan. 31 charging that as First Lady, Clinton showed off "a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos." So we not only have to hear about what she's wearing today, but what she wore (and how she styled her hair) in 1992. On Feb. 9, Reuters news agency reported fashion designer Donatella Versace's advice that "Hillary Clinton should tap into her feminine side and wear dresses and skirts instead of trousers."

A Florida paper, the Sun-Sentinel, chimed in on Feb. 16 with an article by Jura Koncius about Rosemarie Howe, Clinton's interior designer, and how she helped the Senator decorate her Embassy Row house in a "comfortable yet elegant" scheme of "camel and coral."
...

U.S. News & World Report's Gloria Borger accused her on Feb. 12 of using a so-called "mommy strategy" to soften her image and appeal to voters by playing up her role as a mother and wife, as if there's something suspect about a woman who is both a devoted parent and an accomplished politician. Others, grabbing for a clever play on words, have taken to rhyming "Obama" with "Mama," as in a Jan. 23 Washington Post editorial in which Eugene Robinson writes, "Obama, here comes Mama. And she doesn't play."

In a Feb. 14 Seattle Post-Intelligencer column, Susan Paynter notes that the language used to discuss and refer to a candidate can affect public perception. Of recent modes of addressing Clinton, she suggests "for title, try Senator, not Mrs. or Mama."

Chris Matthews, host of MSNBC's talk show Hardball, has become notorious for his sexist remarks about Clinton. On Dec. 19, 2006, he charged that she was being coy about her political ambitions, comparing her to "a stripteaser saying she's flattered by the attention," and on two separate occasions — Jan. 25 and 26, 2007, he referred to her as an "uppity woman." In the aftermath of the Congressional election on Nov. 8, 2006, he discussed her delivery of a "campaign barn burner speech," which, he suggested was "harder to give for a woman," because it can "grate on some men when they listen to it, [like] fingers on a blackboard." Not content to level his sexist criticism on Clinton alone, he continued his rant, wondering how newly elected Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi could "do the good fight against the president...without screaming? How does she do it without becoming grating?" :

Not long after she announced her fifth pregnancy, Sarah Palin faced rumors that it was her daughter Bristol who was having the child — Trig Palin, who was born on April 18, 2008.

That falsehood sprung up again months later, during the 2008 presidential campaign, and it has continued to circulate on blogs despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The e-mails released Friday show that the rumors began very early on.

On April 6, 2008, Palin wrote staffers and her husband, Todd, “Sounds like The Bristol rumor was started and continues via Lyda’s office,” a reference to then-state Senate President Lyda Green (R), a frequent antagonist of the Alaska governor’s administration. “Bristol does want it squashed — we just don’t know how to do so without making it a bigger issue. . . . I figured it was them or [former Palin staffer John] Bitney.”

Doctor Fate wrote:I can promise you NOW was 100% in Hillary's corner.

GMTom wrote:Well, I pretty much said that. I admitted my recollection was a bit off and that I tended to lump similar groups together. But was that good enough? Nope,

Interesting. I have this bridge here. It's not London Bridge, but a thing that goes over water just the same. If it's all the same in your mind, then I'm sure it's just what you need...

not allowed to do that it would appear?

GMTom wrote:The thread is not about the media, the thread is about has the media hated anyone like Palin and so far nobody has proven otherwise. Yes, they have their field days with this person or that, but none like the hate they have for Palin.

and no poor iddle victim, you said something that was a flat out lie, now you claim something else. You go and say what you want, true or not and when called on it want to claim otherwise, nope, nobody is falling for that tripe.