Could we get a link to the McCain ad you mention, please? (And congrats on Jr. starting Kindergarten! It was my favorite grade....)

"These gals just look petty and spoiled and deeply, deeply irrational."

The problem is that that ARE petty, spoiled and deeply irrational; the other problem is that this applies to both genders because the only significant difference is in how the express their petty, spoiled irrationality.

Having said that, I shall savor the irony of the stupid brunette who thought a Republican nominee would actually be pro-choice. HAH! Bugs Bunny said it best: "What a maroon!"

I know many, many women who began this long journey supporting Obama, and they're far from irrational or petulant. In fact, many of them were berated at the caucus site by Hillary supporters when they caucused for Obama. I, and another close friend of mine were treated to similar hoots when we chose to group ourselves with Barack after Edwards was declared not viable in our precinct.

This was in January.

So, perhaps we are not talking about gender stereotyping, but rather stereotyping of individuals who went for HER. Seeing the nasty, childlike behavior of both her and her husband (a POTUS that SULKS??!!), I tend to see that as the big problem we're facing.

So, the little write-off is in kindergarten. That's awesome news.

It's not too early to introduce the idea of "rent." Until he or she starts bringing in some green, this translates to indentured servitude. Hell, as soon as my daughter was old enough to count change and cross the street by herself, I'd send her to the corner store for smokes.

Get him or her used to climbing ladders. Think of all those onerous chores: changing light bulbs, removing dead roof rats from gutters, trimming tree limbs that hang over power lines. Tip the kid a nickel so s/he learns the meaning of "service with a smile."

When the kid asks to watch some special DVD or what not, your correct reply is "Cars don't wash themselves."

You'll thank me.

As for the Hillary hold-outs, I suspect such tough love was lacking in their backgrounds. Countless men have learned the hard way how to blow millions on a campaign and end up with nothing to show for it but a crappy book deal and a boatload of pissed-off donors; just this year, Dowd, Biden, Kucinich, Giuliani, Richardson, Paul, Huckabee, Romney and a few others (Stassen? Did he run this year?) became big fat doo doo head (thanks, jhildner!) losers. Hillary's folks just have to get up to speed in the loser department.

Save the key lime pie for dessert, Clinton voters; in the meantime, enjoy your dog shit appetizer. Works better that way, than the reverse.

Let's also remember that support for Hillary was 60/40 female/male.  I'm sure there are plenty of Y chromosome carriers out there being just as irrational in the same cause -- the media's just more invested in bringing you the images of unhinged women.

Would things be different had Hill beat Obama?  Instead of perceiving that women feed gender stereotypes, we would perceive that blacks upset and demoralized by their candidate's loss feed race stereotypes.  I think this speaks much more to our (society's) need to fit people into stereotypes rather than people's inclinations toward those stereotypes.  (Remember the whole "80% of blacks believe the U.S. government created AIDS to kill black people" debacle?)

In the end, people become emotionally attached to their candidates and feel hurt by the loss of a chosen candidate.  To admit that the other is just as good is to admit that you choose based on personality and not on policy.  And no one wants to admit they see only skin deep, which is what this post assigns solely to Hill supporters (see, e.g., "everyone kind of understands why economically struggling white folks might be suspicious of a Ivy-League-educated black man. But upper- or middle-class white women who backed Hillary and are now threatening to take their toys and go home? These gals just look petty and spoiled and deeply, deeply irrational.").

Tbbaker:

www.youtube.com/watch

My favorite part is when she ticks off "maverick and independent streak" on her fingers.  That's TWO adjectives! Way more than Obama!!

Well, it also feeds gender stereotypes for a woman to write that she was distracted from her work this week by the start of Kindergarten.

I'm not so worried about the way the ad reflects women. I don't doubt that they'll be an ad featuring Joe Lieberman's convention speech in support of McCain. That worries me, as a Democrat, more.

I'm unable to watch the YouTube video from here (work), but has anyone checked this woman out? By way of analogy, Harry and Louise were mere actors, and apparently up for grabs at that.  See www.slate.com/.../2197789

Looks like you're doing your part to reinforce those misogynist stereotypes as well! Please, tell us more in your shrill tone about the hysterical dingbats crowing.

Do you get a free pass blaming the victim (it's Hilllary supporters' fault that men think all women are stupid!) because you yourself are a woman?

It seems to me that it's Obama supporters who grow more shrill by the day as they look for a scapegoat to explain his slow and steady fall in the polls, and as it becomes clear that there are a lot of Hillary supporters (including men--where are they in this little think piece? Right . . . ) who do not and will not support him for president.

Deal with it. And stop sounding so irrational. Like a woman.

Michelle,

Your use of the term "idiot" to describe anybody is unquestionably rich for those of us who've had the pleasure of perusing your oeuvre!  

Anyway... this election is about more than politics.  It's about the health, safety, and security of this nation.  If one doesn't believe B.O. meets the qualification threshold for the Presidency, then he/she can't very well, in good conscience, vote for him.  Obama is abjectly unprepared for the job, and some us don't happen to believe that three and a half years of teleprompter reading makes up for his deficits.

Beyond that, your attempt to drive pro-choice voters away from John McCain is particularly ridiculous.  John McCain voted for Souter, Ginsberg, and Bryer.  He also said as recently as 2000 that overturning Roe would be destabilizing, etc.  Your attempts to paint him as a pro-life absolutist are at variance with the facts -- not that that ever mattered to you before.      

"Looks like you're doing your part to reinforce those misogynist stereotypes as well! Please, tell us more in your shrill tone about the hysterical dingbats crowing. "

...well, there is this hysterical crow who goes by the screen name 'bigdiggy' ...

Yes but I wonder why one would participate in an internal election (which is essentially what the primaries are) in a political party, go through the rules designed by that party and accepted by all the candidates, and then bitch and moan because you lost under those mutually accepted rules, and simultaneously consider oneself an adult.  Male or female.

A mystery to me.  Politics is also about losing and knowing how to do that well and be a good soldier for the larger cause.  If you don't know how to do that, perhaps you need to repeat third grade?

Hey!  My oldest -- my son -- started kindergarten today, too!  Unfortunately, I couldn't make it home to either walk him to or from school (only four blocks from our home).  Congrats, Michelle.  How do five years go so fast?!

As to your post, I simply say bravo.  I am not sure which entity is acting more like a group of petulant whiny 7 year olds:  the Hillary dead-enders or the McCain campaign (with their childish, embarrassing ads).  Whatever happened to accepting defeat with grace and dignity?  I guess this concept, much like the Geneva Conventions in Fredo-World, has been rendered quaint.  A pity.

Please, please, continue to  insult Hillary dead-enders and other bitter voters clinging to guns and religion.

My wife and I had a conversation about this "PUMA" thing recently.  While I think these people are petulant children at best, my wife's rather angry comments about the PUMAs was quite interesting to me.  She went on a rant how these people, namely women, just reinforce the stereotype that women are irrational and don't deserve to be in positions of power.  She's an ardent Obama supporter and detests HRC, but she said she would have voted for HRC if the nominee since HRC's basic positions are still what she wants to see enacted (UHC, rollback of publican tax cuts, eventually getting out of Iraq, etc.).  Basically, she was vocalizing the same thing Ms. Cottle does here (excpet more, ahem, colorfully).

I had to agree with her.  If these deadenders are as numerous as the press makes out, and if they're so petulant that they'd rather see McLiar win, then my wish is that their wish is granted.  They also receive as a "reward" a rollback of women's rights and issues that sets the cause back 100 years.

Politics is a full-contact sport 'ladies'.   In a fair fight your 'player' lost, so deal with it.  I know damned well if Obama lost I'd have to deal with it.

And one more thing: aren't the delegates at this convention supposed to be loyal DEMOCRATS??  If they act like petty toddlers that get all pouty when they loose and threaten to support the other side doesn't that make them really Republicans (and hence have zero voice in the Dem. Party)?

Maybe Obama should make an ad featuring former Republican Congressman Jim Leach.  His remarks at the Democratic Convention were devastating.  Unfortunately, few heard them.

I, for one, don't understand why an economically disadvantaged white man would be any more or less suspicious of an educated black man.  Historically, no one has benefitted more from racism than a mediocre white man.   The key to mediocre white guy's success was that he didn't suffer from true competition. When barriers to entry are removed, the mediocre competitors suffer.  Of course they are pissed.    

The same fear of competition is basis for resentment  that underlies white women's fears.   "Hey, we thought that we were the preferred opressed that got in the door, why do we have to compete with a black guy?"

 I was amused by the comments of nturner, but not surprised.  The Constitution requires that the president be native-born and 35 years old; there are no other requirements,and our history demonstrates that experience is no guarantor of success.  Was America well-served by the extensive experience of Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld?  Of course not, but some of our more successful presidents have had little or no experience in elective political office.  More importantly, John McCain has abandoned many of the positions he held in 2000, particularly after he was smeared by the Bush-Rove machine in South Carolina.  To obtain the nomination McCain veered to the right, courting the conservative republican base.  He now claims to be pro-life, committed to the overturning of Roe v. Wade and has pledged to nominate justices in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.  So much for the "maverick."

I think another important to point is that we might be hard pressed to find a previous primary where a significant number of people publically, loudly, in any available forum, proclaimed that they were now voting for the candidate of the opposing party because their preferred candidate failed in the other primary.  THAT'S the point that makes these women (and perhaps men) seem like such outliers.  Or possibly, they are part of Rush Limbaugh's minions who voted for HRC on his advice and now that she is not the candidate, it makes perfect sense for them to voting McCain. Just a thought...  (that actually would indicate at least a more balanced mind; obviously if you care a whit for any of HRC's positions, you could not possibly, under any circumstance, vote for McCain. And BTW, both HRC and WJC made that point magnificently in their respective speeches.  Good for them!  I doubted they had it in them).

So your point is that if these "women" (because for some reason they're the only ones who offend you) do NOT turn their brains off and vote like lemmings then they're idiots?  Because there cannot possibly be any other reason from yours for a person to not vote for Obama?  Never on any day in history has a majority of Americans favored Obama, so are they all idiots, or just a particular group of women?  If you can't see the differences between Obama and Clinton then it might be time to start questioning your own political insight.  And what if they're not party loyalists, then who are they screwing?  Because any of you saying that the Democrats fought a fair fight and played by rules to which they had both agreed have had your brains turned off for a very long time.  

But, hey, ain't it grand how all the ardent sexists come screaming out of their closets when some "dingbat" with a blog gives them permission to do so?