PalJoey, I forgot about this thread but in relation to your comment below, I have to agree with HorseTears' response to yours. The reason I feel compelled to dig this grave up is because I find the
tone of your post a bit condescending, and I appreciate their focus on the actual issue..''
EDIT: I see the NYTimes article on Madeleine Albright on this issue anyway. Good response.
(His post) "That's the thing that's so puzzling and frustrating, PJ. Hillary does have the record to backup her claims of being one of the strongest advocates for women's rights in modern US history. So, when her campaign and her surrogates go out and try and shame young female voters into supporting Hillary just because she'd break the glass ceiling on the White House it reads as an out-of-touch scolding from elderly women. Hillary's already got the support of older female voters tied up nicely. If this is her way of reaching out to younger female voters, I'm highly skeptical of its effectiveness. Again, not a critique of Hillary's actual record on women's rights, but on her current campaign strategy. "
(Your Post) "No. But her lifelong devotion to championing women's rights--economically, socially and politically--does make her the better choice for female voters as well as male voters.
But you don't care about any of that. You just want to get sooooooooooo angry.
(And besides, you don't live here anyway, do you?)"
Give me claws and a hunch, just away from this bunch.
Updated On: 2/13/16 at 05:27 PM